OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bill Petitions (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Hertfordshire County Council Bill.

Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Rochester, Chatham, and Gillingham Gas Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Bill,

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Great Northern Railway Bill,

Blackpool Improvement Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional

Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time

Henry Bath and Son's (Delivery Warrants) Act, 1890, Amendment Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Corporation (Transfer) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Lands Improvement Company Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

Farmers' Land Purchase Company Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

Penllwyn Railway (Abandonment) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre Rural District Council Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

City of Dublin Steam Packet Company Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment: Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

MAHOMEDAN POPULATION (CENSUS).

Sir J. D. REES: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will move the Governor-General in Council to require in future census reports information regarding the relative numbers of Sunnis and Shias, and the proportion descended from converted Hindus, among the Mahomedan population of India?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The suggestion of my hon. Friend will be transmitted to the Government of India for their consideration.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT (REGULATIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of His Excellency the Viceroy that the draft rules and regulations to be framed under the Government of India Act, 1919, will not be communicated to public bodies for consideration before the final adoption, by the Government of India or otherwise submitted for public criticism; and whether he will advise the Government of India that steps should be taken for the fullest consideration by the Indian public of these rules and regulations and for the expression of
opinion on them by recognised public bodies?

Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member seems to be quite mistaken. His Excellency the Viceroy, in his speech opening the current Session of the Indian Legislative Council, stated that it was his intention to take public opinion in this connexion freely into confidence and, so far as may be, to carry it with him, and that he intended to take every opportunity of laying proposals as they mature before non-official advisers. It is within my knowledge that this policy is being carried out.

COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY (COMPOSITION).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the complaints in India that representatives of the Indian National Congress have been persistently excluded from the Committees appointed for purposes of investigation of public questions by the Government of India, for instance, the Hunter Committee and the recent Advisory Committee regarding Rules and Regulations to be framed under the Government of India Act, 1919; and whether he will take steps to ensure that this body is represented on such public Committees in future?

Mr. FISHER: The Secretary of State has seen these complaints in Indian newspapers. As regards the Hunter Committee, it was obviously necessary to select members who had not, as prominent adherents of the Congress had, already committed themselves to strong views on the points which required investigation.
As regards the Reforms Committees appointed in the Provinces, the Secretary of State has not full information on their composition. But the hon. Member is probably aware that the prevailing party in the National Congress being dissatisfied with the reforms, and having declared itself sceptical as to their sincerity and value, great numbers of Indian Liberal politicians who are desirous of obtaining the best results from the new system have left its ranks and formed a separate Congress of their own. It is probable, and the hon. Member will perhaps recognise that it would be reason-
able, in appointing Committees to work out the details of changes consequent on the recent Act, to enlist the services of men who, while criticising certain features, have promised sincere co-operation in working the new system rather than those who have denounced the Act as unacceptable or unworkable.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would it not be desirable that men of pronounced views, even if hostile to certain aspects of the present Government of India, should be on this Committee?

Mr. FISHER: My right hon. Friend is of opinion that the Hunter Committee in its composition should be a judicial body, and that it is undesirable to appoint on that Committee men who have taken a very strong line in public controversies.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If this Hunter Committee is a judicial body it must be impartial, and why should not distinguished legal luminaries, even if they have pronounced views, be upon it?

LORD HUNTER'S COMMITTEE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India if Lord Hunter has left or is on the point of leaving India; if the Report by his Committee has been submitted or is ready for submission; if he could state when that Report is to be published; and when time can be allotted for discussing in the House the issues that that Report is sure to raise?

Mr. FISHER: I understand that Lord Hunter is on his way home, and that the Report of his Committee reached the Government of India a few days ago. It will be published as soon as possible, but cannot be published before the House rises, so that the question of allotting time is not immediate.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether Lord Hunter, before leaving India on or about the 13th instant, handed in the Report of his Committee to the Government of India; whether it is the intention of the Government to publish that Report in this country and in India; and whether the evidence tendered by the ex-Governor of the Punjab, the Chief Secretary to the Punjab Government, and on behalf of the military authorities will be included or published separately?

Mr. FISHER: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I cannot yet make any definite statement as to the publication of evidence.

DEPORTATION (B. G. HORNIMAN).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether Mr. B. G. Horniman, who was deported from India by the Government of Bombay to this country in April last without charge or trial, has been refused permission to return to Bombay, where he had been domiciled for several years, and resume his professional occupation, and whether he will state why Mr. Horniman has been excluded from the amnesty recently extended under the terms of the King's Proclamation to persons against whom Orders under the Defence of India Act affecting their entry into British India were in force?

Mr. FISHER: The Secretary of State refused to recommend Mr. Horniman for a passport to India so long as the Government of Bombay considers it necessary to enforce the Order made against him. I do not understand the last part of the question, and doubt if there were any per sons excluded from British India in the same manner as Mr. Horniman, who have been allowed to return to it.

TRIBAL MILITIAS.

Sir J. D. REES: 7.
asked whether any change has been effected or is contemplated in the system of tribal militias upon the North-West frontier of India?

Mr. FISHER: This question is now under the consideration of the Government of India.

INDIAN VOLUNTEER FORCE.

Sir W. DAVISON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state if the special medal which has been approved for members of the Territorial Force who undertook to serve overseas in the early part of the War, provided they fulfilled certain conditions, will be awarded to members of the Indian Volunteer Force who were at home on leave and who were mobilised at the same time as the Territorial Force, subject to like conditions?

Mr. FISHER: The matter is under consideration by the Government of India.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this a case in which the maxim bis dat qui cito dat applies with considerable force?

Mr. FISHER: The maxim to which my right hon. Friend refers always applies.

LAJPAT RAI.

Colonel YATE: 9.
asked whether Lajpat Rai, who was deported from the Punjab in 1907, was concerned in any way during his residence in America with the plots that were hatched there for revolution in India; and how many other deportees similarly situated have also been permitted to return to India?

Mr. FISHER: I must refer by hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made in this House on the 28th November, 1917, by the Home Secretary (Viscount Cave). I am not aware that any Indian has been deported to a foreign country. Lajpat Rai was released from internment nearly 12 years ago, and went voluntarily to the United States in 1914.

Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question whether Lajpat Rai was concerned in any of the plots that were hatched in America for revolution in India?

Mr. FISHER: I am not aware that he was.

MOHAMMED ALI.

Colonel YATE: 10.
asked whether Mohammed Ali, who has arrived in England as a member of the Indian Khalifat deputation, is the same Mohammed Ali mentioned in paragraph 164 of the Report of the committee appointed to investigate revolutionary conspiracies in India as concerned in the project hatched in India with the object of destroying British rule by means of an attack on the North-West frontier supplemented by a Mahomedan rising in India itself; whether it was for this reason that he was interned; and, if not, for participation in what conspiracy was he interned?

Mr. FISHER: The individual mentioned in paragraph 164 of the Report cited in the question is not the Mohammed Ali who is now in England as a member of the Khalifat deputation. The latter was interned during the War for conduct
tending to promote the interests of His Majesty's enemies.

ROYAL INDIAN MARINE (OFFICERS' PAY).

Colonel YATE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that officers of the Royal Indian Marine draw full grade pay while on leave, he will say for what reason officers on leave or sick furlough are deprived of the new rates of pay lately sanctioned for that service?

Mr. FISHER: The pay of Royal Indian Marine officers when on duty has recently been increased provisionally by additions to their grade pay which is issued with certain duty allowances. The new rate of grade pay is not suitable as a leave rate because it would increase pay on leave disproportionately to pay on duty. The rates of pay for leave are being separately considered and will be announced later.

Colonel YATE: Could the right hon. Gentleman give me a date?

Mr. FISHER: I am not in a position to give a date now, but I will let the hon. Member know.

REVENUE (TAXATION).

Mr. SWAN: 12.
asked what was the proportion of revenue raised in India by indirect taxation in the years 1899–1900, 1909–10, and 1919–20, respectively?

Mr. FISHER: The proportion of revenue raised by indirect taxation under the heads', Customs, Excise, Stamps and Salt, as compared with the total tax revenue in the years mentioned by my hon. Friend, is 43. 45 and 49 per cent., respectively. For this purpose revenue raised by quasi commercial undertakings of Government, such as railways, has been left out of account and Land Revenue has been treated as a direct head. The 1919–20 figure is based on the budget estimate.

Sir J. D. REES: Seeing how small is the proportion of the wealthy in India to the poor is there anything analogous in the circumstances to justify any deduction as regards the relative incidence of direct and indirect taxation?

Mr. FISHER: That is a matter of opinion.

INDIAN ARMY RESERVE.

Sir A. BENN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what pension will be paid to the widow of a 1st lieutenant Indian Army Reserve of Officers who died in India during last October from fever said to be a recurrence of fever contracted whilst on active service in Mesopotamia?

Mr. FISHER: The widow of a lieutenant of the Indian Army Reserve of Officers dying of disease certified by the proper medical authority as directly traceable to fatigue, privation or exposure incident to active service in the field, would be granted a pension of £100 a year; if the case did not come within this "rule, but death was certified to be due to disease attributable to or aggravated by military service the widow would be granted £75 a year; and in either case, if the marriage took place before the commencement of the officer's military service, the widow might be granted, in lieu of the foregoing pension, an alternative pension, the amount of which would depend on the income of her husband before he joined the Army, but which would not exceed £.300 a year.

KHALIFAT DELEGATION.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 15.
asked what steps have been taken to secure early and wide publicity in India of the Prime Minister's recent reply to the Indian Khalifat delegation regarding British policy in the Near and Middle East?

Mr. FOREMAN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether steps have been taken to telegraph to India the reply of the Prime Minister to the Indian Moslem delegation on the future of Turkey, and to publish it throughout the whole of India in all the vernacular papers; and, if not, will he at once consider the desirability of taking these steps?

Mr. FISHER: A very full summary of the Prime Minister's reply to the delegation was telegraphed to the Viceroy on the 21st March for purposes of publication in India.

INDIAN ARMY (OFFICERS' PENSIONS).

Colonel Sir J. REMNANT: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is now in a position to say when the new warrant
for increasing the pensions of the retired officers of the Indian Army will be issued?

Mr. FISHER: I regret that I am not yet able to state when the revised scale of pensions for Indian Army officers will be issued.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

FELIXSTOWE BOOM DEFENCES.

Mr. WIGNALL: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that men engaged on chipping and tarring of buoys in connection with the Felixstowe boom defence works were engaged at 1s. 2d. per hour, but that 1¼d. per hour is deducted for use of office, books, and paper; and whether he will have immediate steps taken to stop this deduction from the men's wages?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The workmen referred to by the hon. Member are not in the direct employment of the Admiralty. I understand they were engaged and are paid by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company at 1s. 0½d. per hour.

DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can yet state what steps are being taken to deal with the unemployment at Plymouth?

Mr. LONG: Arrangements have been made for a 10,000-ton oil tank vessel to be laid down at Devonport. Any further opportunities of taking in hand work such as is contemplated in the Report of the Colwyn Committee will be watched for and utilised; but, as I have already stated, I fear that further discharges are inevitable.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member's acquaintance with Plymouth is confined to a meeting on Bolshevism which he addressed the other day?

OFFICERS (REDUCTION OF NUMBERS).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to state how it is proposed to deal with the question of the reduction of the number of officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines?

Mr. LONG: I would ask the Noble Lord to postpone this question.

Viscount CURZON: When would be a suitable day to put down this question, as the matter is one of vital importance?

Mr. LONG: It is a question of vital importance no doubt, but, as my Noble Friend knows, it is a matter which is under discussion between the Treasury and the Admiralty, and I cannot say when a final decision will be arrived at. I hope very shortly.

ALL-BIG-GUN SHIPS.

Viscount CURZON: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what ships of the all-big-gun type the Admiralty are proposing to scrap; whether their decision has been considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence; and if they concur with the Admiralty decision?

Mr. LONG: The following ships of the all-big-gun type are not required for the post-War Fleet; but the method of their disposal is not yet settled:—"Agincourt," "Bellerophon," "Dreadnought," "Superb," "Inflexible," "Indomitable." The remainder are all included in the post-War Fleet. The reply to the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative, and the last part of the question does not therefore arise.

PETTY OFFICERS (UNIFORM).

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the announcement of the fact that the fore-and-aft rig is only to be worn by petty officers of four years' seniority has caused great disappointment amongst that class in the Navy, as from statements officially made it was understood that it would apply to all alike, irrespective of seniority, and that in consequence the new uniform has been practically ordered throughout the Navy and much expense incurred; and whether he can see his way clear to amend the order by granting the concession to all petty officers alike?.

Mr. LONG: I am not aware of any statements, official or otherwise, which would warrant the assumption that the fore-and-aft rig was to be granted to all petty officers irrespective of seniority. We have no information at the Admiralty to confirm the suggestion that the new
uniform has been practically ordered throughout the Navy; and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will send me definite particulars in order that I may deal with the last part of his question.

SEAMEN (DEATH OF RELATIVES).

Mr. GWYNNE: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the father of A. Judge, able seaman, H.M.S. "Vectis," sent a telegram on the 7th March to the Admiralty asking them to transmit a message to him of his mother's death; that no reply was received until the 11th March, and then to the effect that the Admiralty were unable to forward private messages to naval ratings at public expense; and whether he can, in cases where relatives of naval ratings are dead or dying, make arrangements for the Admiralty to transmit the message to avoid delay, especially in cases when the whereabouts of the ship are not known to the relatives, instead of keeping the applicant waiting for a reply and then refuse the request?

Mr. LONG: The facts are as stated in the first and second parts of my hon. Friend's question. The Admiralty are not authorised to transmit private telegrams at the public expense in such cases, whether they affect officers or men; but the usual practice is to inform the applicant to this effect at once and to furnish the address of the ship—and it was by an oversight that this practice was not adhered to in this instance. Instructions have been given that applicants in such cases shall be replied to by telegraph in future.

MENTION IN DESPATCHES (DECORATIONS).

Viscount CURZON: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the reason for denying the grant of a bronze oak-leaf to officers and men of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and Royal Naval Reserve mentioned in despatches similar to that granted to the Army and Royal Air Force; and whether this will give rise to an invidious comparison as between the respective services?

Mr. LONG: The matter has been reconsidered, and arrangements will be made to issue a bronze oak-leaf to officer and men of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Naval Reserve mentioned in despatches. The Regulations
governing the issue are under consideration, and will be promulgated later.

MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government have taken any steps to reconsider the recommendations of the Colwyn Report as regards merchant shipbuilding in the royal dockyards since the presentation of the Naval Estimates; and, if so, will he give the results of such reconsideration?

Mr. LONG: The recommendations of the Colwyn Committee are being carried out, with the sole exception that vessels of a mercantile type are being built for the use of the Admiralty instead of to the order of private firms. The possibility of laying down other vessels later in the year is now being examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE STUDENTS (GRANTS).

Sir M. CONWAY: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour if all ex-service students entered at British universities for the purpose of proceeding to degrees receive their Government grants through the Board of Education, with the sole exception of those entered for degrees in veterinary medicine; if, while these students pass the same matriculation examination as do other university students and enter the university on the same footing as other students, attending the same courses as the medical students during their first two years, nevertheless students preparing for degrees in veterinary medicine still continue to receive from £30 to £40 per annum less than do those students of corresponding status whose grants come through the Board of Education, notwithstanding the assurance given that the Government grants awarded by the Ministry of Labour to these university students should be equal in all respects?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): There are two classes of ex-service students at British universities who do not receive their Government grants through the Board of Education. These are, on the one hand, students in agricultural science, and, on the other hand, students in veterinary medicine. The former receive their grants through the
Ministry of Agriculture, the latter through the Ministry of Labour. The arrangement under which veterinary students obtain their grants through the Ministry of Labour was made in the interests of the profession, and with the concurrence of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. No assurance has been given that the Government grants to university students in veterinary medicine should be equal in all respects to those awarded to other classes of university students. All cases are decided upon their merits, and the private resources of applicants are examined with a view to ensuring that the grants awarded should be adequate for reasonable maintenance, and should not entail any unnecessary expenditure of public funds. If a student feels that the amount of his award is inadequate, he can appeal for an increase within the maximum permissible. The maximum annual awards permissible are the same, whether the grant be made by the Ministry of Labour or the Board of Education.

Sir M. CONWAY: Is it not the case that students in the University of Liverpool proceeding to veterinary degrees have to take exactly the same course, lasting five years, as medical students, and that during the first two years they have identically the same course; and whether it is not the case that they were given to understand they would receive exactly the same grants as are received by medical students?

Mr. PARKER: I trust my hon. Friend will put that question down. I am afraid he knows more about this than I do.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OFFICES (DISCHARGES).

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men over military age and physically unfit for the Army who worked in Government offices since the outbreak of war; what percentage of them have been discharged on account of the necessary reduction in staffs; what length of notice of dismissal was given to them; and what provision was made for their maintenance pending their obtaining civilian employment?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I am afraid
that it is impossible without undue labour to arrive at even approximate figures for the first and second parts of the question. Temporary staffs of Government offices whose remuneration did not exceed £160 per annum were given a week's notice or a week's pay in lieu of notice before discharge. Those whose remuneration exceeded £160 per annum were given a month's notice or a month's pay in lieu. In addition, a warning of at least one week (in the case of employés with remuneration not exceeding £160) and at least one month (in the case of employés with remuneration exceeding £160) was given wherever possible before the actual notice of discharge was given.
Temporary staffs who became employed contributors under the Health Insurance Acts before 25th August, 1918, were entitled to free donation benefit policies under the general scheme. Donation benefit for civilians ceased on the 25th November last, and all temporary civilian employés of Government offices now receive a month's individual notice and wherever possible a month's warning in addition.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. G. LOCKER LAMPSON: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will refer to the Consultative Council on National Health Insurance or to a small committee the question of the desirability of abolishing the class of deposit contributors?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): The majority of deposit contributors are in this class by their own choice, and there is no evidence of any general desire for the abolition of deposit insurance. If at any time it is found that there is an appreciable number of insured persons unable to obtain admission to approved societies, I will refer to the Insurance Consultative Council the question of making some alternative arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — BY-ELECTIONS (DECLARATION OF POLL).

Major MORRISON-BELL: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the shortening of the time elapsing
between the polling of the votes and the declaration of the result in a by-election?

Dr. ADDISON: The Government have under consideration legislation to deal with this matter; but I regret I am unable to make a further statement to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

INCREASE OF RENT (RESTRICTIONS) ACTS.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that lenders on house property affected by the Rent Restrictions Acts, whose money is frozen at a rate of interest much below the market rate, are on the sale of such properties not permitted to recover their loans, because the vendors, to secure a higher price, arrange with purchasers to retain their loans, and to give the latter a part or the whole of the benefit of the low rate of interest; and whether he will secure in any new rent restriction legislation that every lender shall, on the sale of property mortgaged to him, be entitled to receive payment of his loan out of the purchase price?

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. and learned Member's suggestion shall be brought to the notice of the Committee on the Rent Restrictions Acts, who will no doubt consider it in connection with the general position of mortgagees of house property.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that that is given effect to, because it is causing great inconvenience?

Dr. ADDISON: I can scarcely give instructions to the Committee. I must await their Report.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of small property is carrying a mortgage, the interest on which is going out, and that it is almost impossible for small property owners to hold it? Will the right hon. Gentleman say that it is the intention of the Government to remove this restriction so far as small property owners are concerned?

Dr. ADDISON: I cannot make a definite statement before the Committee reports, but I am fully aware of the
various points the hon. Member has raised, and he may be sure we shall bear them in mind. It will not be long.

Mr. BILLING: Is it the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to give this question his favourable consideration? Is he in favour of removing the difficulty in the case of small properties?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rate of interest is fixed as well as the rent, and that because the rate of interest is fixed on the pre-War basis this injustice is caused?

Dr. ADDISON: I am well aware of all the facts, and am giving the matter the most friendly consideration.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many soldiers who sold their houses and went on service bought houses on their return prior to the Rent Restrictions Act of 1919 and cannot get possession, and that their furniture is stored, while the non-military occupants of the houses which the soldiers have paid for show only that minimum of alacrity in looking for another house sufficient to prevent the County Courts from ejecting them, and are in many cases letting parts of such houses on lucrative terms; and whether he will amend the Rent Restriction Acts, and make it obligatory on the occupant of a house who refuses possession to a purchaser to find equal alternative accommodation for the latter, and to make good to him any increase in cost due to his refusal of possession, including the storage of the purchaser's furniture, if any, and any increase in daily travelling expenses?

Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon on the 19th February of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very large number of these cases of soldiers who have bought their houses and cannot get into them? Can he suggest any justification why one man should occupy another man's house when the latter needs the house, and why he should not pay the loss that accrues to the owner?

Dr. ADDISON: That is just one of the cases which shows how difficult this question is. One request is that we shall restrain tenants from being evicted and the next is to show how we can get them out.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not right that if the tenant stays on in the house he should at least make good the losses and damage that accrue to the owner in consequence?

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication as to when the Committee will report and when the Government's decision will be arrived at?

Dr. ADDISON: I will undertake that legislation will be introduced in time—before the June quarter-day.

MUNICIPAL LOANS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a number of municipalities are adopting all kinds of schemes with a view to raising money to build houses within their own localities; if he is aware that the Borough of West Ham require £350,000 to build 350 houses; if he can state what local authorities have been successful in raising money for housing schemes; and if he is in a position to state, in the event of local authorities being unable to borrow the money they require, what the Government intend doing in the matter?.

Dr. ADDISON: At my request local authorities all over the country are now beginning a campaign for raising loans for housing purposes. All authorities with a rateable value over £200,000 will be required to borrow for themselves the money they require. They have, in the great bulk of cases, been successful so far, and I hope that the special efforts they are now making will enable them to obtain the further money wanted. Authorities with a rateable value under £200,000 will be able to look to the Public Loans Board, so far as they cannot obtain loans otherwise.

Mr. BILLING: Will the Government guarantee these loans on behalf of the municipal authorities?

BUSINESS PREMISES.

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware
that, arising out of the great demand for property, where valuable businesses have been built up by tenants after years of thrift and labour, shops are being sold over tenants' heads, tenants who are in many cases comparatively poor people, but who are turned out by the new owner without receiving any compensation; what remedy such dispossessed tenants have; if they are powerless to obtain justice; and whether he will consider the advisability of securing such alteration of the law as will make profiteering in land and property impossible?

Dr. ADDISON: I may refer the hon. and gallant Member to the very full answers I gave on Thursday last to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Hendon, and to the supplementary questions which then arose. I am not yet in a position to add to what has already been stated in the House.

EJECTMENT ORDERS.

Mr. SWAN: 56.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that William Forster, of Lanchester, Go. Durham, has had an ejectment order granted against him, and that within three weeks he himself, with his wife and three children, will be left homeless, as houses are impossible to be obtained; and if he will take steps to get such order suspended until it is possible for Forster to get a shelter?

Dr. ADDISON: The granting of ejectment orders is, subject to the Statutes in force, within the discretion of the Courts, and I have no power to intervene in such cases.

Mr. SWAN: Is it not possible that something might be done to delay it, in order that this family might not be cast on the roads,. as under the circumstances a house is absolutely impossible to obtain?

Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is aware that legislation on this subject is pending; I will make further inquiry, but I understand this case has been decided by the Courts.

Mr. SWAN: Yes, but it will take another 12 months at least before a house is erected under that legislation.

Dr. ADDISON: I was speaking of the ejectment of tenants.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT (REGISTERS).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give the annual cost involved in the revision and publishing of two registers annually under the Representation of the People Act; and what estimated saving would be attained by publishing only one register every year?

Mr. BALDWIN: The estimated annual cost of registration (including printing) for England and Wales, and Scotland on the basis of the existing franchise is £1,750,000, of which one-half is borne by the State, and one-half by local authorities. It is difficult to estimate accurately the saving which would be attained if only one register were prepared and published every year, but it would probably be from one-third to two-fifths of the above sum. In Ireland, where only one register is prepared each year, the annual cost is estimated to be £135,000.

Sir R. COOPER: Can the hon. Gentleman say what will be the cost to the country of getting out a new register, to embrace women up to twenty-one?

Oral Answers to Questions — NURSES REGISTRATION ACT (COUNCIL).

Mr. GRUNDY: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give an assurance that in the appointment of the first council under the Nurses Registration Act there will be included representatives directly nominated by bonâ fide nurses' trade unions, as distinct from associations presumed to cater for nurses, but directed and controlled by persons other than nurses?

Dr. ADDISON: Under the Schedule to the Act I am bound to consult, and I have consulted, three organisations specifically named and such other associations or organised bodies of nurses or matrons as ask to be consulted. No organisation is given the right of direct nomination to the General Nursing Council. The invitations in connection with the membership of the Council will be issued to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

Mr. LUNN: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government has
accepted the recommendations with regard to the Poor Law, which were made by the committee which inquired into this subject in 1917, and when a Bill giving effect to these recommendations will be introduced?

Dr. ADDISON: As I have previously stated, the Government have accepted the principle on which the recommendations of the Committee were based, but I am not yet in a position to say when the necessary legislation will be introduced.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it likely to be this Session?

Dr. ADDISON: I hope so.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASIA MINOR.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed that the area of occupation of the Greeks in Asia Minor should be extended; whether promises of military and financial support to the Greek Government have been made by His Majesty's Government in the event of a renewed conflict between Greece and Turkey; and why the Report of the Inter-Allied Commission of Inquiry into the massacres following the occupation of Smyrna by Greek forces on 15th May, 1919, has not been laid on the Table of the House, in view of the fact that a summary of this Report was published on 18th March last?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am unable to give information about the area of occupation of the Greeks in Asia Minor, as this whole question is under consideration, in connection with the Peace Treaty. Apart from any natural obligations she may have as an ally during the continuance of a state of war, Great Britain is bound by no secret agreements with Greece. As regards the publication of the Report of the Inter-Allied Commission of Inquiry, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on Monday last by the Prime Minister to my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, since that reply, this has been published in leading daily papers in this country, and is it treating the House with respect not to lay the authentic document on the Table?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not at all sure that what has been published is an authentic document, but in any case there is a difference between the Government taking the responsibility of issuing a document in which our Allies are concerned and its finding its way surreptitiously for publication.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can I have an answer to the second part of my question—
whether promises of military and financial support to the Greek Government have been made by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have answered that question clearly and specifically. We have come under no obligations of any kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL WAK GRAVES COMMISSION.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an early opportunity to this House to express in the Division Lobby their opinion on the policy at present pursued by the Imperial War Graves Commission?

Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question may I ask if he can see his way to grant this request. As one who is strongly and conscientiously opposed to the policy of the Noble Lord I should like to see this matter discussed by the House.

Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject could, I think, best be raised on a Supply day, and my Noble Friend, the Patronage Secretary, is trying to arrange for the discussion in that way. The matter is one which should, I think, be left to a free Vote of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE UNION PRINCIPLES (HERTFORD STRIKE).

Mr. BILLING: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the critical situation which has arisen throughout the country in connection with the recognition by local governing bodies of trade union principles, and that this state of affairs has culminated in a lightning strike in the borough of Hertford of all employés of the corporation; and if, with a view of not only bringing this strike to an end, but of preventing
the occurrence of similar strikes throughout the country, he will state what is the policy of the Government in this connection?

Mr. PARKER: As the hon. Member was informed on Monday last, my right hon. Friend is not aware of any critical situation of the kind described. It has been the practice of many local governing bodies for some years to recognise trade unions. I understand that, as a result of a difference between the Hertford Corporation and a trade union, twenty-three labourers stopped work on Thursday. The Ministry of Labour has been in communication during the past month with the parties and is endeavouring to secure a settlement. The question of recognition of trade unions by local authorities is in each case a matter for the local authority to determine. No question of Government policy appears to arise, and it is not considered that the situation at Hertford demands exceptional measures from the Government.

Mr. BILLING: I should like to ask the Leader of the House, to whom this question is addressed, whether on the question of principle he will say whether it is the policy of the Government, having regard to their close relationship with municipal bodies, to permit trade unions to utilise the machinery of trade unions to force municipal authorities into acts which are opposed to the best interests of the ratepayers?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obvious that a question which is purely departmental ought to be answered by the Department. There is no question of a new policy by the Government.

Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon Gentleman inform the House whether the hon. Member who has asked the question wants recognition of non-unionism or "blacklegism"?

Oral Answers to Questions — REVENUE BILL.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to introduce a Revenue Bill this year?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Yes, Sir.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the Income Tax be in the Revenue Bill instead of the Finance Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Any proposals for alteration in the machinery of Income Tax must be in the Revenue Bill. I could not ask the House to consider them in the time limits fixed for the consideration of the Finance Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — TITHE-RENT CHARGE.

Colonel NEWMAN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, as a protest against the assessment to rates of tithe-rent charge, rural clergymen are allowing their goods to be distrained on; and will he say whether the Government intends to introduce legislation during the present Session to deal with the question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A Bill dealing with this question will be presented this afternoon by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEVOLUTION CONFERENCE.

Mr. STEWART: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether Mr. Speaker's Conference on Devolution is still sitting; if so, whether their inquiry is approaching an end; and whether their Report can be looked for shortly?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer in each case is in the affirmative.

Mr. STEWART: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Report may be expected?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not possible to give the exact date.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL HOLDINGS, ISLAND OF LEWIS.

Mr. HOGGE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that interdicts have been served on Lewis men in the Sheriff Court at Stornoway for occupying farms belonging to the Lewis and Harris Welfare and Development Company, Limited; whether certain of these farms had been scheduled before the War by the Board of Agriculture for small holdings; whether, since the Armistice, repeated applications have been
made to the Board of Agriculture by returned sailors, soldiers and others for holdings on these farms; and whether it is intended to find room for these men or allow them to go to prison?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I understand that interim interdict has been granted in the eases referred to. The farms in question had not, in point of fact, been secured before the War for small holdings by the Board of Agriculture. The Board had laid before the Land Court a scheme under the Landholders' Act, but owing to the War proceedings were sisted. Applications have been made for holdings as stated by my hon. Friend, and are at present before the Board. As my hon. Friend is aware, the purchase of the Lews by Lord Leverhulme and the developments contemplated by him have made a change in the situation of which it has been necessary to take account. I am still in negotiation with Lord Leverhulme and his representatives, and I am clear that a solution must be found, and that without delay. With reference to the last part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that obedience to the Order of the Court will obviate the alternative to which he refers. I understand that the legal action which has been taken is supported by a large section of the Lews community.

Mr. HOGGE: If my right hon. Friend agrees that a solution must be found, with out delay, will he see that men, discharged sailors and soldiers from the Isles, are not imprisoned for doing what he thinks ought to be solved without delay?

Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether the difficulty has not arisen from the policy pursued of rating the original landlords to extinction, and whether the introduction of something like just rating would not be more calculated to ease the situation than anything else that could be done?

Mr. MUNRO: I do not think the rating difficulty has given rise to the present difficulty. In answer to the other question, I have no power of control in questions of the imprisonment or otherwise of these men. I have only said that negotiations are pending and that there will be no avoidable delay in reaching a conclusion. These are very delicate negotiations, and I hope we may be given a reasonable time for reaching a solution.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it the case that one of the farms scheduled has been without a tenant for three years—one of these farms that these crofters wish to get hold of—that the only things on the land are a few sheep belonging to Lord Leverhulme, and that he says that if the Government wish the land he is quite prepared to give it; and will the Government say they do want the land in order to hand it over to smallholders?

Mr. MUNRO: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is not so familiar with the attitude of Lord Leverhulme as I am. I have yet to learn that that is the position. With regard to the position of the farm, I cannot without notice say whether it has been tenanted or not during the last few years, but if I am right in my understanding of the question, Lord Leverhulme's contention with regard to that farm is that it is required for the milk supply of Stornoway.

Dr. MURRAY: In view of the fact that negotiations have been going on for over 12 months, is there any hope or prospect of a speedy decision on the part of the Board of Agriculture?

Mr. MUNRO: If the hon. Member has done me the honour to listen to my answer, he will notice that I said that I am clear a solution must be found, and that without delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRE-WAR PENSIONERS (NECESSITOUS CASES).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet Committee appointed to consider the question of necessitous oases among pre-War pensioners have come to any decision; and, if so, whether he can make a statement to the House on the subject?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee have not yet reported, and I am therefore unable to make any statement on the subject.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the Committee will be in a position to report before Easter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope so. They have had a good many meetings, and nobody knows better than my hon. Friend that the subject is not an easy one.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (LORD MILNER'S COMMISSION).

Captain W. BENN: 54.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state when the Report of the Milner Commission will be issued?

The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Harmsworth): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I made yesterday to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for East Leyton (Lieut.-Colonel Malone).

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Major HILLS: 55.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, before the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, he will have specimen balance sheets for Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, respectively, circulated as a White Paper, so as to inform the House how the financial clauses of the Bill will work out?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A White Paper will be issued immediately and will, I hope, give my hon. and gallant Friend sufficient information on the subject. If the White Paper, when it is in the hands of the hon. Member, as I hope it will be within 48 hours, is not sufficient for his: purpose, perhaps he will communicate with me again.

RIOT, DUBLIN.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Can the Chief Secretary give us any further details with reference to the events in Dublin on the day before yesterday?

Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir. I have no additional information. The city is now quiet. The inquest has been adjourned and a military court of inquiry will be held. So far as I can gather there is no evidence that the deaths of civilians were due to the military.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the reports in the Press are correct that an armoured car was turned out and used machine guns mounted on it shortly after the regrettable occurrence described by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no information about that, but I should be very
glad to inquire. The only information I have got was that which I gave to the House yesterday, and in that information there is no mention of machine guns.

MURDER OF LORD MAYOR OF CORK.

Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as to the discrepancy between the report of the General Commanding in Cork and the report which he gave to the House on Monday?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know that there was any discrepancy. If there was it must have been about the visit of the military. My information was that the military did visit the house.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that the military entered the Lord Mayor's house in order to detect or get trace of the murderers, and has not the Commanding Officer in Cork issued a statement flatly contradicting that, because he said that when the military went to the house he was not aware that a murder had taken place, and he was not aware that he was entering a house of mourning.

Mr. MACPHERSON: That may be so. I was asked the question without notice, and my information was that the military did visit the house immediately after the murder, and I therefore assume, as I think I am entitled to do, that they went to the house in the interests of justice to try to find out any trace of the murderers.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that the Chief Secretary stated in this House, and it is in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the military visited the house in order to find out any sort of evidence which would help them to trace the murderers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] But that is untrue. Did not the right hon. Gentleman also say, in answer to a Labour Member, that the reason that the police did not go upon this police work was that they were afraid the police might be shot? In view of the fact that a gallant officer had been shot that night, and in view of the statement of the General Officer Commanding, is it not perfectly obvious that either the Chief Secretary's statement or the statement of the Chief Officer Commanding is a falsehood?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday. The statement I gave then I believed to be true. I told the House quite frankly that I was asked the question without notice. I knew the military had visited the house an hour after the death had taken place. I was asked to justify that visit, and I did it in the only possible inferential way.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that on the Consolidated Fund Bill I shall make some remarks with reference to this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANÆSTHETICS (ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. GILBERT: 57.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to some recent inquests held in London into deaths caused by the use of various anæsthetics; whether he has received any riders passed by the juries in these cases; whether he proposes to make any further inquiry into these cases; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to provide that anæsthetics shall only be administered by properly qualified medical men?

Dr. ADDISON: I am in communication with the Home Office, but am not at present in a position to make any statement in regard to the last part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (POLITICAL SITUATION).

Mr. WILLIAM CARTER: 58.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now make any statement as to the position of affairs in Japan?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to the written answer [published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1920; col. 2433; Vol. 126] to a similar question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kehworthy).

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EAST AFRICA (FLOGGING INDIANS).

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Prisons Ordinance, 1918, gave superintendents of prisons in British East Africa and Protectorates the
right to flog Indian prisoners as a disciplinary measure; and whether he will consider the desirability of an inquiry into the system?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The Ordinance referred to by the hon. Member does not deal with the matter. The Prisons Ordinance, 1914 (in Section 94), provides that for aggravated, more serious, or repeated, offences a prisoner may be sentenced to be flogged by a superintendent or a Visiting Justice. There is no distinction as to race.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is any inquiry being made into the incidence of this method of punishment in East Africa?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, the whole question of how these matters affect Indians will be discussed by the Governor of British East Africa with the Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA (NATIVE TERRITORY).

Mr. IRVING: 62.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that recent re-adjustments of native territory have resulted in the addition of over one million acres to the property of the commercial branch of the Chartered Company of British South Africa; whether the land to be surrendered by the natives includes a belt running through the Sabi Native Reserve, twelve miles wide, appropriated for purposes of railway construction; and whether His Majesty's Government will agree to the appointment of a commission to re-consider matters upon which the Southern Rhodesian Commission and the local native department have failed to agree?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Under the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is printed as an appendix to Cmd. 547, the ownership of the land referred to in the first part of the question is vested in the Crown and not in the British South Africa Company. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the third part in the negative. The hon. Member will observe from the Parliamentary paper to which I have already
referred that the recommendations of the Commission were generally acceptable to the Native Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (COINAGE).

Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: 63.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what are the intrinsic values of the coins of a non-silver alloy which it is proposed to issue in West Africa; and whether it is considered that the methods of maintaining parity, which have been effectual with silver coins intrinsically of considerable value, will be equally effectual with coins which are of very little intrinsic value and are nevertheless legal tender for an unlimited amount?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I cannot state the precise intrinsic value of the new alloy coins, but it will be quite small. Silver coins tend to go out of circulation, but it is hoped that the new alloy coins will not do so, and will at the same time be more acceptable that paper notes. There has been no difficulty in maintaining parity between West African notes and sterling hitherto, and there is no reason to anticipate difficulty in the future.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is all the difference between maintaining parity of exchange for silver coins of great intrinsic value and these non-silver coins, which will be of no intrinsic value?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I thought I made it clear to my hon. Friend that there will be no difficulty in maintaining parity of exchange between sterling here and paper notes which have no intrinsic value whatever, and these alloy coins are of a more practical nature and are more durable, more acceptable, and more useful, and will also, I trust, maintain parity of exchange.

Mr. STEWART: Will the Colonial Office guarantee to give one pound note for every twenty of these shillings?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: If twenty of these alloy coins or paper notes are paid in at the West African end, the payer can receive £1 sterling.

Mr. WILLIAMS: At this end, not in Africa?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.

Mr. ALFRED T. DAVIES: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the War Department to continue to use special facilities for Army canteens such as were extended during the War period; whether retail stores with such facilities are projected at Aldershot involving heavy expenditure from moneys allotted by the Treasury; whether, in connection with such establishments, existing or projected, rent, rates and taxes are paid from public funds; and whether he will consider the competition of this system with local traders?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): As already stated, it is the intention to continue the Navy and Army Canteen Board as a permanent organisation for providing canteen facilities for troops at home and in garrisons overseas. With regard to the establishment of a retail store at Aldershot, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 10th March to the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton, East (Lieut.-Colonel Malone). No expenditure from public funds was involved in the establishment or conduct of this store, which is being closed. In answer to the last part, I would refer to the reply given on the 15th March to the hon. and gallant Member for Epping (Brig.-General Colvin).

ARMY OF OCCUPATION (OFFICERS DEMOBILISED).

Mr. C. PALMER: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the circumstances in which Lieutenant C. Fentum and Lieutenant Oswald, 51st Battalion Northumberland Fusiliers, were demobilised from the Army of Occupation at Cologne; whether these ex-officers make the definite charge that they were turned out of the Army because they laid information against a watchmaker, Otto Primadesi, of Hoho Strasse, Cologne, for insolence to Lieutenant Fentum and refusing to produce his pass; whether both these ex-officers possess fine military records; and whether, having particular regard to the need for maintaining the authority of the Army of Occupation and checking insults to the King's uniform, he
will cause a full inquiry to be made into their case?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not aware of the circumstances in these cases, but am obtaining a report, and will communicate with the hon. Member later.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIA AND PALESTINE (ARMY EXPENDITURE).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the amounts of £5,893,100 and £997,900, appearing on page 14 of the Army Estimates under the heading "Other Expenditure" in regard to Mesopotamia and Palestine, respectively, represent the excess cost of administration in those territories over and above the revenue collected and the cost of the military garrisons; and whether he will issue a White Paper giving itemised particulars regarding the nature of the expenditure accounted for under this head?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The sums shown for other expenditure on page 14 of Army Estimates relate to military expenditure only. As stated in the note on page' 15, they cover mainly Indian and local labour (in the countries in question) and miscellaneous expenses of Indian native troops. These expenses comprise expenditure in India on depots, relief units, ancillary services and stores in connection with the Indian units in Mesopotamia and Palestine. The amounts falling under these two heads are approximately: for Mesopotamia, expenditure in India, £4,482,000, labour, £1,411,000. Palestine: expenditure in India, £874,000; labour, £124,000. These figures will be duly set out in the complete edition of the Estimates shortly to be issued.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Do I understand that the Indian Revenue is not being asked to defray any portion of this expenditure, and that the whole is falling on the British Revenue?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I should like to have notice of that question.

Sir J. D. REES: How do these figures come into the Army Estimates, from which previously anything in connection with India has been excluded? Will this be continued, or is it only a feature of the present moment?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: It depends upon who pays for the Mesopotamia campaign.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASTE AREAS (CULTIVATION).

Mr. EDWARD WOOD: 68.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether, with regard to the scheme that the Government have undertaken having for its object the planting of waste areas in various parts of the country, his attention has been drawn to the fact that considerable areas could be made available out of the residue belonging to the lord of the manor if the commons in the North of England were properly regulated; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to provide for the compulsory regulation of these commons, giving due regard to the various interests concerned?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The introduction of legislation as to regulation of commons is under consideration. Provision for the acquisition of common land for afforestation is made in the Forestry Act, 1919.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Will a Clause be embodied in the Bill dealing with the retention of allotments on commons?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is an entirely different question.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the commons be restored to the people?

Major Earl WINTERTON: Before the policy is entered into by the Forestry Commission of taking part of these waste areas, has any effort been made to make a general survey of the areas so available?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think that question should be addressed to the Forestry Commission.

Earl WINTERTON: Should it not be addressed through the hon. and gallant Gentleman?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MUSEUM.

Mr. GILBERT: 69.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the hours of opening the library at the British Museum; and if he will consider, in the
interest of readers and students, whether any extension of the existing hours can be granted?

Mr. BALDWIN: The reading room is open from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. I have not at present any evidence of a sufficient demand for an extension of the existing hours to justify the extra expense involved.

Mr. GILBERT: 70.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether it is proposed to discharge the trained firemen who are now engaged at the British Museum; and, if so, will he state the reason why; and whether, considering the value of the national property stored in this museum, he will consider the necessity of having efficient firemen always employed on this building?

Mr. BALDWIN: No changes are at present contemplated in the fire-preventtion staff at the British Museum. The protection of the national collections there from the risk of fire is the subject of special regulations of the trustees.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALEXANDRA PALACE.

Mr. HURD: 71.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, seeing that the Alexandra Palace is not the property of the State, but was bought with money subscribed locally, he can now state when the building will be handed back by the Government for local educational and other uses?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): I can only refer my hon Friend to the reply which I gave on the 3rd July last to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Wood Green, a copy of which I am sending to him. I regret that, at the present time, I can add nothing to that answer.

Mr. HURD: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman told a deputation last summer that he himself fully contemplated restoring the Palace long before this time?

Sir A. MOND: Not the Palace, I think.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE (SUBSCRIBERS' ACCOUNTS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 72.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now
able to inform the House whether telephone subscribers will be furnished with a statement of the amount standing to the credit of their account at the end of the previous quarter when applications are made to them for the prepayment of a further deposit in respect of calls?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The general question of telephone accounting is under consideration in connection with the revision of telephone rates, and arrangements will be made under the new tariff to furnish to subscribers the information to which the hon. Member refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTAL FACILITIES, SOUTH KENSINGTON.

Major BIRCHALL: 73.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in the residential district of South Kensington there are six deliveries of letters and 10 collections from pillar-boxes daily, and whether, in view of the need for economy, these facilities could be considerably curtailed?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The deliveries in the South-Western District have been reduced from nine to six and the collections from 15 to 10, as compared with the pre-War service. In view of the volume of correspondence, which is heavy, a further reduction would not result in any considerable saving of expenditure, while it would involve the employment of a larger number of part-time officers.

Dr. MURRAY: May I ask whether the saving effected will be used for one mail a day to the Islands off the West Coast of Scotland?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: That does not arise out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES (AIRCRAFT MATERIAL).

Mr. W. CARTER: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether all the Government's surplus aircraft material has now been sold to the Aircraft Disposal Company, Limited; what was the price paid by the buying companies; whether there was a valuation of the material before it was sold; and, if so, what was the estimated value?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): I have been asked to answer this question All the Government surplus aircraft has been sold, the price being £1,000,000, plus 50 per cent. of the net profits realised by the purchaser on the sale of such material. No valuation in the ordinary sense of the term is possible, as the items involved have no definite ascertainable market value. The total stock of aircraft, which has already become or will become surplus, is sufficient to meet several times over the potential world demand for the next few years.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 75.
asked the Attorney-General whether the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown was sought by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) with regard to its Order of 12th February, 1920, prohibiting the consumption of intoxicants in any club henceforth to be formed in the city of Carlisle; and whether the Board was advised that such an Order came within its powers?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I am informed and believe that the effect of the Central Control Board's Order is not accurately stated in the first part of the question. Subject to this observation, the reply to the first part is in the negative, and to the second in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTED GOODS (MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT).

Mr. TILLETT: 76.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Merchandise Marks Act permits the importation of goods without the country of their origin being stamped thereon; and, if so, what means are taken to prevent British agents afterwards impressing their names on such goods, thereby implying they are of British manufacture?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge man): Goods which do not bear marks suggestive of British origin are not required by the Merchandise Marks Act to bear on importation any indication of the country of manufacture. The application to goods in the
United Kingdom of a false indication as to the country of their manufacture is an offence under the Act, but the question whether the name of a British agent would constitute such an indication would be one for the decision of the Courts in any particular case. A Departmental Committee is now engaged in considering whether, and in what respects, the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act relating to indication of origin require amendment.

Colonel NEWMAN: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether this country has surrendered her right with regard to the imposition on imported goods of any mark of origin to any international tribunal; whether he is aware that during the month of January 120,000 German clocks and watches were imported with the words "Made in Germany" omitted from dials and box labels, that some of these clocks further bear the words "Westminster chimes" on clocks, keys, and boxes; and what action does he propose to take?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The marking of foreign goods on importation is regulated by Section 16 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, which is administered by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. I am informed by the Commissioners that there have been several recent cases of importation of German clocks bearing marks which should have been accompanied by a statement as to the country of manufacture. In these instances the goods have been detained, and delivery has been allowed only on compliance with the statutory requirements. One consignment of clocks bore the word "Westminster" on the keys and the inscription "Westminster Chimes" on the box labels. Delivery in this case was not allowed until the keys had been destroyed and until the statement "Made in Germany" had been marked on the labels.

Colonel NEWMAN: Before the War, would not these clocks have to be stamped "Made in Germany"?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is no difference between then and now.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: Can the hon. Gentleman give any instances of German trade marks being erased?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have heard of such instances, but I do not know whether there is any justification for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE CLERKS, DUBLIN.

Mr. JELLETT: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many civilians and how many ex-service clerks, respectively, were employed by the Board of Trade as clerks in Dublin during the period December, 1914, to November, 1918; whether he is aware that John Dunnen, a civilian of military age, was employed by the Timber Supply Department, 6, Hume Street, Dublin, whilst ex-service clerks were available at the Ministry of Labour, Dublin; whether he is aware that, in accordance with the Government's recommendations, all Government Department in Dublin other than the Board of Trade are replacing civilians by ex-service clerks now available at the Ministry of Labour, Dublin; and whether the Board of Trade proposes to adopt the same course?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: During the period December, 1914, to November, 1918, the Board of Trade engaged in Dublin 20 temporary male clerks (including one ex-service man) and 45 temporary women clerks, typists, and shorthand typists. In addition they borrowed ten railway officials. Mr. Dunnen was engaged on 2nd July, 1917, and ceased to be employed on 28th February, 1920, when the office in which he had been employed was closed. This office employed 18 of the 20 temporary clerks engaged during the period referred to by the hon. Member. As I informed the hon. Member on 4th March, the Board have not omitted to give preference to the employment of ex-soldiers in Dublin, and of the six men engaged since the end of 1918, five are ex-service men.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

SUPPLIES (MIDLAND AND WALSALL).

Mr. MARRIOTT: 78.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the serious position in which the gas undertakings in the Midland area, and notably in Oxford, find themselves in consequence of the inadequate supplies of coal, and of the large percentage of inert material contained in the supplies
they do obtain; and if the expense to the undertakings and to the State, involved in compelling a South Midland town to obtain its supplies from Durham instead of from contiguous coalfields has been taken into consideration?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware that considerable difficulties are still being experienced in securing adequate supplies of coal to gas undertakings, and that complaints are being received as to the quality, but all possible steps are being taken to remedy the position. The matters mentioned in the last part of the hon. Member's question were given full consideration in connection with the formulation of the scheme for improving supplies of coal for inland consumption.

Sir R. COOPER: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that coal supplies in the borough of Walsall are quite inadequate to provide fires in a number of cottages or in the police court, and that several houses where there are serious cases of sickness are without fires; and will he provide a more equitable supply of coal at once from the thousands of tons which are daily passing through Walsall to London and the South?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware that there is a shortage of coal at Walsall. Steps have already been taken to supplement the ordinary supplies by sending 250 tons into that town, and the position will be closely watched.

Sir R. COOPER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a shortage of nearly 3,000 tons of coal to what the Coal Controller's allowance would have given, and that 250 tons will not nearly meet the business needs?.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware that there is much difficulty. I am in communication with the Coal Controller with the view of doing what we can in the matter.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is likely to be a greater shortage owing to the action of some Gentlemen here?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR (IMPORTS).

Captain Sir B. STANIER: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether
he can give the total imports of sugar, with its value, into the United Kingdom for the year 1919?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The total quantity of sugar imported into the United Kingdom in the year 1919 was 31,949,000 cwts., valued at £53,962,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — DYE STUFFS.

Mr. RAFFAN: 83
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has received a communication from the British Chemical Trade Association, dated 2nd December, 1919, relative to the distribution of dyestuffs received from Germany under the Reparation Clauses of the Peace Treaty: if so, why no reply has been given; whether any list of the dyes so imported from Germany and a statement as to quantities available has been made public;
(2) whether earlier notice was given to the Bradford Dyers' Association and the Calico Printers' Association than that published in the Press on 13th November, 1919, notifying that applications for the dyestuffs referred to must be made by the 20th November, 1919: if so, why preferential treatment was given to these trading concerns in view of the fact that the dyes used by them represent less than five per cent. of the total dyestuffs consumption of the country;
(3) why German dyestuffs, imported under the Peace Treaty and therefore the property of the nation, were not sold by public auction or in the open market, in order to obtain the best possible price, instead of the method employed, by which certain trading associations appear to have received preferential treatment to the detriment of the public purse: and what steps have been taken, or are proposed to be taken, regarding the distribution of the last and future consignments of the dyestuffs from Germany?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The letter from the British Chemical Trade Association to which my hon. Friend refers was the last of a series of communications which were carefully considered, but on which the Board of Trade did not see their way to take any action as they appeared to be based on a number of misapprehensions. The actual facts are that the' method of distributing the dyestuffs received from
Germany as part of reparation was adopted on the recommendation of the Colour Users' Association, which is a body representing a large number of consumers of dyestuffs not only in the textile trades, and a still larger proportion of the actual consumption. It was decided that the dyestuffs to be received should be allocated at fixed prices according to proportionate requirements rather than sold by auction or in the open market, so that the smaller consumers should receive a share and not be outbidden by the larger and wealthier concerns, and that allocations should be made only to consumers and not to dealers or other intermediaries. The proceeds of the sale of the dyestuffs are credited to the General Reparation Fund under the Treaty of Peace; and it is obviously not desirable that the prices charged in this country should be higher than those charged in other countries which also receive supplies as part of reparation. The Colour Users' Association prepared a detailed statement of the collective requirements of their members, including the Bradford Dyers' Association and the Calico Printers' Association, without reference to the possible supplies obtainable from Germany, as information on that point was not available at the time. The notice in the Board of Trade Journal of the 13th November was intended to give consumers not members of the Association a similar opportunity of putting in statements as to their requirements, and was largely so utilised. No preferential treatment of any kind in respect either of notification of the classes of dyes obtainable from Germany or of the allocation of dyes received has been given to the two trade associations named by my hon. Friend The question of the desirability of modifying the arrangements in respect of future consignments is under consideration.

Mr. RAFFAN: Why was no reply given to the final communication from the British Chemical Trade Association; and if their case was based upon a series of inaccuracies why were these not pointed out?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was not aware that a reply was not sent. I am sorry if there has been any discourtesy, but only an acknowledgment could have been sent.

Mr. RAFFAN: If the Association desires to make further representations will they be considered?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Oh, yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEEL PLATES.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 87.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board if Trade if he will grant a return of the tonnage output of steel in plates for export from the principal British steel plate manufacturers and the relative quantity supplied by them to home manufacturers from 31st October to the end of February; will the Government take immediate steps to restrict the export of steel plates until the home demand has been supplied, keeping in view the unemployment which will be caused by a shortage of steel and the higher value of the manufactured articles as compared with the steel plates used in their manufacture?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The export of steel plates of all kinds amounted in the four months named to 112,237 tons, but I have no information as to the proportion which this amount bears to the total output. I am, however, making inquiries in the matter, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend. I will bring the suggestion contained in the latter part of the question to the notice of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are great engineering works in Scotland which are rapidly being brought to a complete standstill for want of steel plates; if so, what justification is there for allowing steel plates to go out of the country until the engineering works here are fully supplied?

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Is my hon. Friend aware that the difficulty is really one of transport, and that there is no question of whether or not the steel plates are exported; the difficulty is that of getting the plates to the works?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the difficulty is not one of transport? Steel plates can be brought to the Clyde by water, and it is there where they are specially required.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH POTASH COMPANY, LIMITED.

Sir R. COOPER: 88.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what is the amount of the gross turnover of the contract for potash supplies entered into between the Government and Germany on which the British Potash Company, Limited, was entitled to one per cent. profit; and what further profits have been received by, or are still due to, that company under the arrangement by which that company was to receive one-third of any further profit?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The gross turnover of the contract for potash supplies entered into between the Government and Germany on which the British Potash Company, Limited, is entitled to one per cent. profit is approximately £980,000. No further profits have been received by that company, and at the present time, it is not possible to state what further profits will be due to that company under the arrangement by which that company is to receive one-third of any further profit. In view of the extra expenses incurred at Rotterdam and Hamburg, consequent upon the strikes at those ports, the contract has been rendered less remunerative to the company.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY'S PARES BILL.

Mr. GILBERT: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he can state, for the convenience of London and other Members who are interested in it, if it is intended to take the London Electric Railway Company's Fares Bill at 8.15 p.m. to-morrow (Thursday) as printed on the Order Paper?

Mr. THOMAS: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask if he is aware that this Bill affects the interests of the men, who have effected a settlement, though the money has not been paid? The management say they cannot and will not pay until this Bill has been debated in Parliament, and the men have decided that unless they receive their wages next week there will be no traffic during the holidays? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. BONAR LAW: As my hon. Friend is aware, Bills of this kind are set down
by the Chairman of Way and Means; the Government are not responsible for them. I understand, however, that the reason the Bill was set down for tomorrow was that my right hon. Friend recognises the urgency of it. In the ordinary course it could only be taken at 11 o'clock at the end of the discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I trust that discussion will be completed by 8.15; if not, I hope hon. Members will remain so that the matter can be thoroughly discussed.

Mr. THOMAS: May I say, so that there may be no misunderstanding, that I expressed no opinion as to the wisdom or—[Interruption.]

Mr. J. JONES: Get on with it. [Interruption.]

HON. MEMBERS: A threat!

Mr. J. JONES: If you threaten us, why should not we threaten you?

Mr. THOMAS: It is the common property of the management that I have done nothing but try to avert trouble, but, knowing that this resolution had been passed, ought I not to avail myself of the opportunity of telling the House of it?

Mr. J. JONES: And that is all the credit you get. They treat you as they treat me.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): May I make an appeal to the House in this matter? This Bill has been postponed three or four times to meet the convenience of, in particular, the London Members. It really is an urgent matter that the House should come to a conclusion upon the Second Reading and not postpone the matter further, or until after Easter. In the ordinary course it would have come on at 8.15, but for the resolution of the House which has given precedence to the Consolidated Fund Bill. I trust that hon. Members will be ready, if necessary, to give a short space of time extra in order that the Second Reading may be disposed of, and, if thought fit, the Bill sent upstairs to be properly examined before we adjourn for the Recess.

Sir J. D. REES: Does not this Bill indirectly affect all the constituencies', and may I ask the Leader of the House whether an effort will be made to have
it debated at 8. 15, and not put off till after 11 o'clock?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend has probably forgotten the arrangement come to by the House in regard to finance. This Bill can only be taken at 8.15 if the discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill ends before that time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Sir WILLIAM SUTHERLAND, K.C.B., for the County of Argyll.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL,

"to reduce temporarily the rates payable in respect of Ecclesiastical Tithe Rent-charge," presented by Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN; supported by Dr. Addison; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to the Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Bill, without Amendment.

Criminal Law Amendment Bill [Lords] and Criminal Law Amendment (No. 2) Bill [Lords],—That they have come to the following Resolution, namely; That it is desirable that the said Bills be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Commander Bellairs and Mr. Lunn; and had appointed in substitution: Major Howard and Mr. Royce.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).

Sir FRANCIS LOWE reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills;
That Captain Knights, one of the Members of the Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Sir FRANCIS LOWE further reported from the Committee: That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday, 20th April, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Rendall to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Shops (Early Closing) Bill) and Mr. John William Wilson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the National Health Insurance Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No.1) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

TRANSPORT.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I am sure the whole of the House will welcome the return of the Minister of Transport to this House, and we congratulate him upon his recovery. In the past, his presence in this Chamber has been almost like angels' visits, few and far between, and now we hope he will be able to give us some outline of that great work of social reconstruction of our transport system which, we must all agree, whatever view we take, is of the utmost importance. I do not underrate the value of the work done by the Parliamentary Secretary during the right hon. Gentle man's absence. I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the excellent way on which he has represented that Department during the absence of his Chief. I think the Ministry was particularly fortunate at its inception in having at its head two men, who are essentially business men, and who will approach the questions which come before them without that official taint which so often sterilises and ties up with red tape the work of Government Departments.
During the discussion of the Supplementary Estimates the Parliamentary Secretary told us it was unreasonable for us to expect that the Ministry, having been in existence for such a short time, should be in a position to revolutionise and reform entirely our transport difficulties, but I think we have a right to ask that when we have voted £181,000 as Supplementary Estimates, and when we have voted an equivalent sum to an annual expenditure of £300,000 a year, we ought to know something of the lines upon which these reforms of administration are to work. We shall be agreed that at the present time our transport system is hopelessly inadequate, and it is in a deplorable condition so far as efficiency is concerned. I do not want to deal with generalities, but I do want to put some practical cases of the difficulties
under which the railways and the industries of this country are working. Bather than deal with generalities I will give a few instances of which I have firsthand knowledge of what is occurring on the north-east coast. I do not say that the position there is any worse than in the rest of the country, but I think the difficulties from which the traders suffer there are only typical of those endured right throughout the length and breadth of the land, more particularly as regards industrial centres. I take the north-east coast in the districts of the Tyne, the Wear and the Tees, where a larger proportion of iron and steel products are made than in any other similar area. I take that area because I happen to have first-hand knowledge of the difficulties under which those industries are working. We quite understand that at the time of the Armistice and during the transition period there would be difficulties and delays, but I submit that 15 months after the signing of the Armistice we have a right to expect that things will be getting better, and that we shall soon achieve a normal condition of things so far as our transport service is concerned.
4.0 P.M.
Unfortunately, so far as we on the North-East coast are concerned, the position, instead of getting better, is steadily going from bad to worse. There is a progressive tendency in the wrong direction. It is because the situation is so serious that I venture to lay before the House some of the difficulties under which we labour. In March last year, in conjunction with my hon. and gallant Friend and Colleague, the Member for Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams), I had the honour of introducing a deputation to the Board of Trade, the Department then dealing with the railway system of this country, to explain how seriously industry was handicapped by the lack of facilities. At that time there were accumulated stocks of iron and steel finished products amounting to 64,000 tons, which is at least three times the normal amount of stocks. As a result of our re presentations and of special efforts that were made by the Board of Trade, those stocks by the end of the following quarter, the end of June, had been reduced from 64,000 to 32,000 tons. There was still far too much, but it was a decided improvement. By September they had increased to 53,000 tons, by
December to 70,000 tons, and to-day there are 90,000 tons of finished steel products waiting for customers who are clamouring for them. We heard to-day at Question time that the shipyards of Scotland are held up because they cannot get the plates. I submit that the difficulty is due to the lack of transport to convey them from the rolling mills to the shipyards, and to the lack of production at those rolling mills owing to the want of transport to bring the material to the mills.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to realise the serious position in the industrial community. It may be said that, although the stocks have increased, the output during the same period has been increased, and that the railway companies have been handling more than they did in pre-War times. I know that figures can be given to prove anything, but, so far as the output in the area to which I refer is concerned, instead of increasing during this period it has been decreasing. I had the figures taken out in order that I might be able to speak with a Certain amount of authority. In the week ending 8th February last year the joint output in that area, not their capacity but their output, was 37,000 tons. Yet we find that for the following half year ending September, the output was only at the rate of 24,000 tons per week, or 35 per cent. less. It got worse towards the end of the year, and for the quarter ending 31st December the output was only 23,000 tons per week, or 38 per cent. less than the amount turned out in a given week in February. Therefore, although the output in this area has been gradually reduced week after week, yet the stocks of finished material have increased threefold, from 32,000 tons at the end of June to over 90,000 tons to-day That shows a most deplorable state of things. The one cry which we hear all over the country is the need for increased production. It may be said that is one of the few points on which the Treasury Bench are united—the absolute need for increased production if we are to establish our credit and if we are to re-establish the rate of exchange and put the industrial and financial conditions of this country on a sound basis. Yet, although the employers and employed are doing their utmost to increase output, they are handicapped in this extraordinary way by the lack of
facilities to move their goods from one point to another.
Not many weeks ago I was asked by one of the works in that district to go down and see the terrible state of things. I said that I believed what they told me, but they said that they wanted me to go down and see for myself, so that I could tell the Minister with first-hand knowledge how their sidings were congested and how men at their works had to stand off. They had stocks of 30,000 tons of material overflowing their mills and their sidings, and they had had to stand off work for over a week in order to reduce those stocks. What is the effect of this condition of things? Workmen see that if they work four weeks' full time they have 20,000 tons at the end, whereas the railways are only equal to dealing with 4,000 tons per week, or 16,000 tons per month. Naturally, the men say: "What is the use of turning out to the utmost of our capacity if at the end of a month we have to stand idle for a week in order that the railways can work the goods." Consequently, they reduce the output to meet the carrying capacity of the railways, and you therefore lose 35 per cent. of the output. So much has that been the case that some steel works in that area have taken out figures to ascertain what was the loss of output last year, and they estimate that, entirely owing to lack of transport facilities, there was a shortage of 725,000 tons. That is equivalent to something between £16,000,000 and £20,000,000 worth of goods. This, let it be remembered, is at a time when the Government are urging that we should increase our export trade in order to stabilise the rate of exchange. We have a right to ask that the Government should assist manufacturers and workers to increase their output and their export trade and thus re-establish the rate of exchange and that balance of trade which, unfortunately, is against us. The House will remember that the figures for January and February of this year showed a declension in our exports and that the margin of imports over exports was greater in January than in December.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not quite gather whether the hon. Gentleman gave the actual places where he says that these things occur.

Mr. THOMSON: I am perfectly willing to tell the House. I am referring to the
North-East coast as an area. The particular works where the 20,000 tons overflowed the mills and sidings were those of Messrs. Dorman, Long & Co. of Mddlesbrough, but the same thing applies practically to all the steel works on the North-East coast, which have had to stand idle for weeks at a time owing to the lack of facilities for moving the goods which they had produced and for which customers were clamouring. Not only does that hold up the production of plates, but it holds up the building of ships which the Government have urged employers to produce as rapidly as possible owing to the shortage of freightage accommodation, These stocks are not stocks rolled on chance sales; every ton is rolled against specified orders for particular works which require them for particular jobs. Therefore, shipbuilding and engineering are held up because this particular material cannot be got at until the balance of the stocks is removed. An hon. Member the other day urged that in order to establish a balance of trade in our favour we should prohibit imports. I submit that the wiser plan is for the Government to encourage our trades and industries to manufacture and produce more and to encourage exports so that the balance may be remedied in that way. It may be said that it is all very well to criticise, but what are the remedies? The situation in our district is so serious, in fact it is so serious right throughout the industrial part of England, that I venture to make one or two suggestions. We know that there is a shortage of wagons. I submit that the Government are not altogether free from blame on that score. During the War they sent over to France between 30,000 and 40,000 wagons. In October of last year, when I had the privilege of taking a deputation to the Minister of Transport on this question, we were told that there were still 20,000 wagons left in France, and a promise was given that they should be returned at the rate of 800 or 900 per week. At that rate, those wagons by this time should have been all returned. I would like the Minister to tell us how many are overseas still waiting, when our industries are starving for the want of them. We were told, in reply to a question the other day, that 15,000 wagons had been sold to the French and Belgian people. I asked why that was done, and I was told that owing to the
question of plates and fittings they were not suitable to run on our railways; but that excuse only applied to 5,000 of them.

Sir F. BANBURY: There is also the gauge question. Some are too big to run on our lines.

Mr. THOMSON: That is another point. The War Office early in the War had an order to make wagons for France. They made them to the exact gauge for running on the Belgium and French lines, which is about one-eighth or three-eighths narrower than the English gauge, while our wagons will run on the Belgium lines the wagons made for the Belgium and French lines will not run on the English lines. Our intelligent War Office gave the order so that those wagons would run on the Belgium lines but not on the English lines. That is an example of the way in which the Government are to blame. Would not it have been quicker to have altered the axles and the gauge rather than to have rebuilt the whole of the wagons? I know it would have been an expensive operation, but the question of time is essential, and, so far as the fittings and the plate blocks are concerned, I submit that a great part of those 15,000 wagons could, with much less cost than the building of new wagons have been made suitable to run on our lines. I would ask the Minister to tell us how many wagons are now left in France and how soon he can promise to deliver them to the railway companies of this country. I would like him to give his mind to the time taken in the transit of wagons and trains in this country which are available for use. I believe he will tell us that the ton mileage carried is as great now as it was before the War. Unfortunately, owing to circumstances over some of which the Government have control, the distance hauled is infinitely greater, and I think a re-arrangement of the coal traffic would at any rate reduce the length of distance hauled in many cases and make the wagons available of infinitely more value. Apart from that, I submit that the time taken by the railway companies themselves in hauling traffic from one point to another is altogether excessive and shows a want of efficient organisation.
I will only trouble the House with one or two actual cases typical of what is going on in thousands of others. Naturally, I take my own district, because
I am acquainted with it, and I have ascertained the facts. There are cases in which wagons in the North-East Coast area take 20 days to be hauled a distance of 40 miles. I am dealing not with part wagon loads, but with whole wagon loads, sent direct from the producers' works to the consumers' works, the haulage therefore being entirely a matter in the hands of the railway company. I have here a list of instances showing the time occupied—not on long distance journeys but on short distance journeys—in hauling wagons from the receiving point to the delivering point. For a distance of 22 miles, from Stockton to South Shields the time occupied is 20 days; from Middlesbrough to the Tyne, 16 days; and, further afield, from Leeds to the Tyne, 55 days; from Sheffield to the Tyne, 61 days; and from Glasgow to the Tyne, 61 days. These, of course, are extreme cases, but there are hundreds of them. The average time taken by the bulk of the goods trains throughout the North-East Coast service for short distance traffic is three times as long as it was before the War, and the natural result is that the carrying capacity is reduced to that extent, and even if there were more wagons than before the War they would only be doing half the work which they formerly did. The suggestion is made by traders and others on the North-East Coast that so long as this extreme shortage of wagons exists the three-shift system should be worked. I hope the Minister of Transport will bring his influence to bear on the railway companies to improve their organisation and methods of working, and to try and establish the three-shift system so that what transport there is shall be in use the whole time, thereby enabling output at the works to be increased and maintained.
I apologise to the House for going into all these details. The question is a most serious one, not only for the particular area to which I refer, but for the whole of the country. It is not merely a question of the position being bad. It has been gradually getting worse month by month and quarter by quarter. At the time of the Armistice and in the months following it was understood there would be delays, but as time has gone by the position has got worse and worse, and it is time we appealed to the Minister to see if he cannot exercise his ingenuity
and secure an improvement. I hold in my hand a telegram I received this afternoon from the area with which I have been dealing in which it is stated that the shortage of trucks still continues, that the position grows steadily worse, that the stocks are now over 90,000 tons as against 70,000 tons at the end of 1919, and all this despite constant representations made to the Ministry of Transport, to the railway directors, and the officials, there being no evidence of the slightest improvement having resulted from the last deputation of the Minister on the 30th October. I appeal to the Minister to see if he cannot in some way devise means whereby there may be an improvement. We have been told by his Parliamentary Secretary that this is not a matter for the Ministry of Transport to deal with, but that the railway companies have the control in their own hands, and we must appeal to them. We on the North-East coast have appealed to them. We have appealed to the officials; we have seen the Board of Directors; we have also appealed to the Ministry of Transport, and now finally we appeal to this House to see whether, by the pressure of public opinion, it cannot influence the Minister. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man, it is not beyond the powers of a Department costing £300,000 per year, to devise some scheme whereby this terrible waste and under-production can be prevented.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to the Very serious position in which the nurserymen in the Lea Valley are at the present time, owing to the lack of transport. These nurserymen occupy an area extending for a considerable distance beyond Tottenham, and they employ, I believe, 6,000 or 7,000 hands. They consume something like 300,000 tons of anthracite coal annually, and this involves a delivery of some 400 truckloads weekly. Recently they have been put very low on the list of trades to be supplied with coal; they are in fact almost at the bottom. These nurserymen use their energies in the production of food. They are not orchid growers, but they produce enormous quantities of tomatoes. Thanks to the exceptionally fine and warm weather we have recently had they have been able to do very well in the last two or three weeks, and they have got all their plants in, but they have only something like a
week's coal supply in hand, and if the weather changes, as it probably will very shortly, they will not have sufficient and then their plants will be killed, there will be no work for the summer, and some 6,000 people will be thrown out of employment. Six thousand is a very low estimate, probably it will be nearer 10,000. Already in that particular district we have a very large number of unemployed persons, and I am sorry to say the total ig likely to be much increased by the reduction of the Small Arms Factory at Enfield, and by dismissals from the Waltham Abbey factory in the same area. I ask the Minister of Transport if he cannot see his way to provide an adequate supply of coal for this most important industry. It has been suggested that the anthracite coal which is used there might be sent by sea, but the nurserymen declare that that is impossible because the coal they use is in very large blocks. If it is sent by sea, it is considerably broken up in the process of handling it and transporting it from the ships to the barges, and then it cannot be used in the furnaces, as small coal falls through the grates. The cost of seaborne coal would be excessive, and when they got it it would only be worth about one-half of what it should be. I take this opportunity of drawing the attention of the Minister of Transport to the very serious position in which these nurserymen are, and I hope he may be able to provide a remedy.

Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: I wish to take this opportunity of impressing on the House, as well as on the Minister of Transport, the position in which this country stands in consequence of the shortage of storage for grain in bulk. This, more than anything else, has caused and is causing congestion at our ports, and unless it be remedied, as I suggest it might be very readily, that congestion will go on. It must do so if we are to have in this country a sufficient stock of grain for our immediate requirements. There is no provision in this country today for holding more than from three to four weeks' supply of grain in bulk, and the consequence is that, as we cannot go on under existing circumstances as we did before the War, we are taking in our grain in parcels from hand to mouth, and storage accommodation has to be found for it, not in the ordinary way in bulk, but in sacks. Space
on the quays is taken up in putting the grain from bulk into sacks which have to be purchased for the purpose, and the grain is then taken away and warehoused at the docks. Owing to the way in which the work has been done, we have heard little of the congestion at the docks due to this storage of wheat, although that storage has occupied space much required for merchandise. Even a part of the coal storage at the Port of London a short time ago was filled with wheat.
This matter received consideration by the Royal Commission on the Supply of Food in War-time in the years 1903–5, and the Commission reported that in the seven years out of the 11 with which they were dealing there had been at periods less than 2½ weeks' stock in port. Although such a condition of things might have been allowed to go on before the War, yet during the War it was the cause of much anxiety in consequence of the operations of the U-boats, an anxiety which the country would not have suffered from had there been proper storage accommodation. That is a state of things which must not be allowed to go on, and I am convinced it is only necessary in these times to impress on this House, and on the country, the fact that there is something which can readily be done, even before next season's arrivals, to ensure that the necessary steps shall be taken. The Royal Commission reported that it was desirable to have recourse to measures for increasing the stocks of wheat held in this country, and there was a scheme for co-operative storage rent free which might be tried as an experiment, although they did not think that an offer of storage rent free would prove a sufficient inducement to keep in this country wheat at present held in the country of production. It was not until 1908 that two of the largest dealers in grain in the world, Mr. Ogden Armour and Mr. J. C. Schafer, of Chicago, offered to keep in stock in this country a quantity of wheat if storage was provided for them rent free. In order that the House may realise how small would have been the cost of providing that storage, I would like to state that storage sufficient for six weeks' supply of wheat for this country could have been provided for about the same sum as the cost of running one light cruiser. In 1908, Lord Balfour, who was Chair-
man of the Royal Commission, was informed that, if the storage were provided, it would be made use of to the extent of two-thirds of its capacity, and this was passed on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the present Prime Minister. In September, 1910, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was again communicated with, nothing having been done in the meantime. In October, 1910, the then Prime Minister—the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Member for Paisley—was approached, and the matter was referred by him to the Committee of Imperial Defence. Admiral Sir Charles Hartley, the Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence, very, thoroughly examined the proposal and fully approved of it, and he tried to put it into operation, but in May, 1911, the Treasury decided that they would not adopt the proposal for the present. In October, 1912, the then Prime Minister stated that the question of food supplies was receiving careful consideration by a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I have already said that the Executive of the Committee of Imperial Defence was fully in favour of the proposal being carried out, and a meeting of the Sub-Committee, presided over by Mr. McKenna, was held on the same day. On the 13th May, 1914, the matter was debated in this House, and Mr. Runciman, the President of the Board of Agriculture, stated that every suggestion made before the Royal Commission was rejected by the Royal Commission, and that nothing could be done one way or the other.
I have stated these facts in order to show that, at the beginning of the War, we were in that dreadful position of not having three weeks' storage space for the supply of wheat in bulk. Immediately after the War began, some of us did what we could, outside the Government, to help in these matters. I myself built in two months a warehouse to hold 40,000 tons of wheat for the Board of Agriculture That was wheat stored in sacks, and I only give the illustration to show how easy it is to give those facilities. I can assure the Minister that he will get every assistance, from those who understand the question, to enable the necessary facilities to be given during the next few months, so that we may get rid of this terrible congestion in the ports. Only yesterday,
in answer to a question, it was stated that 1,500,000 tons of wheat were coming forward from Australia. It is quite true that Australian wheat, up to the present time, has come forward in sacks, but the facility is desired none the less as regards wheat in general. I limit myself on this occasion to that particular subject, which is so important to the country, in the hope that I may be able to make a point with my right hon. Friend.

Captain WATSON: I desire to raise, quite briefly, a subject which affects every cyclist in this country, namely, the compulsory carrying of a rear light on his machine. As the House knows, it was not necessary, before the War, to carry a rear light. During the War the necessity for carrying a rear light was imposed. That Order was cancelled, but during the Railway Strike of last year it was reimposed, and it is now necessary for every cyclist to carry a rear light. This affects many thousands of people in this country, and there is a very strong feeling against it. At present, owing to the rough state of the roads consequent upon the fact that very little was done towards their up-keep during the War, it is almost impossible for a cyclist to keep his rear light burning, on account of the great amount of vibration on the rear wheel. An hon. Member of this House told me that, on a very short ride which he took a few evenings ago, his lamp went out four times in a distance of twelve miles. The objections to compulsory rear lighting may, I think, be summarised in this way. In the first place, it removes the the responsibility for road accidents from the overtaking to the overtaken person. Secondly, if the motorist is not able, from the strength of his own lights, to see a cyclist riding away from him at a speed up to ten miles an hour, what chance has he of seeing a pedestrian. Thirdly, if the law at present existing is made permanent, a motorist is entitled to presume that a road which does not show a light ahead is clear, and, in case of a rear lamp either going out or being jolted out,' he can plead contributory negligence on the part of the overtaken person. Personally, I have been a motorist for a great many years, but I have considerable sympathy with that large body of cyclists who are at present compelled to carry rear lights, and I trust that the Minister of Transport, as and when he is in a position to deal with this question, will have
regard to the large weight of opinion in the country in favour of the views which I have endeavoured to put forward.

Mr. BILLING: I venture to make an appeal to the Minister of Transport from the diametrically opposite point of view to that of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down. Having been a cyclist myself for many years, in the old days of high bicycles, which were unsprung, I appreciate the difficulties of getting certain types of lamp, and especially cheap ones, to keep alight; but there is no difficulty in keeping lamps of the better type alight, so far as my experience serves. Hon. Members know quite well that, unless you have a well-designed tail lamp on a motor car, if you are using oil, there is always a tendency for it to blow or jolt out; but I have never found a police officer yet who has met that excuse with any degree of sympathy. It is more in the interests of the cyclists themselves than of anyone else that this matter ought to be taken into consideration. Personally, while I would be quite prepared to drive a motor ear, either in London traffic or in the country, without a tail light, I would not venture out on a bicycle on a dark night without carrying a rear light, whether it were compulsory or not, for my own safety. I cannot understand, considering what a representative body motorists are in this country, how they have been forced to suffer and submit to be imposed upon by every other class. It is asking a motorist too much, when driving on a road, to keep a constant look-out on the near side of the road, or in the middle of the road, for the various figures which loom up, especially in the half light, when a light, no matter how small, is sufficient, not only to save the driver a considerable amount of nervous anticipation, but possibly even to save the life of the cyclist himself. I do not think the cyclists have made out any case against this particular Regulation, which has been framed in their own interests, and I trust that, no matter what representations may be made, the Minister of Transport will see that they do not, in their desire for economy or convenience, jeopardise their own lives.
With regard to the question of new Regulations in connection with motor cars, I trust the Minister of Transport will not make any drastic changes without getting the considered opinion of this House. The motor car industry in this
country to-day is in a very precarious position. There was a boom on the occasion of the show, but it was mostly artificial. There is every reason why road transport should be given the greatest assistance that the Minister can give. I know that his experiments in regard to lorry transport for relieving congestion have not been very successful, but I would like to ask him to compare the effective mileage of any given lorry with that of any given truck. A lorry can work 24 hours a day with two drivers, or 12 hours a day with one driver, without interfering in any way with the general movements of other lorries carrying on the same work. On the other hand, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to picture for a moment, as I am sure he has seen them, the vast acres of railway trucks due to congestion, not occasioned by their own lack of self-locomotion, but by the limitations of lines on the bottleneck principle, and to say whether or not he has actually proved, on mileage and cost, the inefficiency of motor transport to an extent which would lead him to discard it. I would like also to ask him whether he will take into consideration,' in these new Regulations, the position of the motorist who is not wealthy, but who keeps a car for use occasionally during the year. That kind of man is likely to be very seriously penalised if the recommendations of the Committee, as now framed, for new motor legislation, are carried through without discussion. I think this House has the right to ask the Minister to give an opportunity for discussion beforehand, and, if I may presume to say so, for assisting in drawing up, in the "general interests of the motoring public and of the public at large, the Regulations and changes which he proposes to make.
In reply to a supplementary question of mine the other afternoon, the Prime Minister said he had not altered his policy in connection with canals. I know he has not. He never had a policy. You cannot alter a thing you have not got. There never has been a policy of canals in this country, except in so far as there was a very definite policy on the part of all railways to close down canals on account of the competitive rates. It has been stated that no railway could live if the canal system was perfect, because canal transport is so much more efficient from the point of view of economy that
it would put the railways out of business. If we are on an economy campaign it shows bow essential it is for the Minister of Transport, who presumably is not running his Department in order to exploit the people, but rather to relieve taxation and to relieve congestion, to get to work on a sound policy with regard to the water ways of this country, irrespective of any temporary injury that the railways may suffer. There are hundreds of thousands of unskilled men to-day seeking employment through the Labour Exchanges. They are unskilled from conditions which are mostly attributable to the War. They are drawing in one form or another large sums of money from the State as it is essential they should do. The State must realise the obligation that rests upon them of adopting a sound policy dealing first with canals and secondly with roads. The system which is in vogue in South Africa for example of road boards, irrespective of local councils, taking charge of large districts and repairing and renovating roads and canals, would do very much towards relieving our transport troubles, perhaps in five years' time, and would do much towards providing employment of a useful and healthy character to a vast number of men at present borne on the unemployment register.
Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will keep in closer touch with the Board of Trade, the Coal Controller and the various other Departments which offer him and his Department as the reason for any difficulties which any hon. Member may put before them in consequence of complaints from their constituents? I represent a constituency where a considerable amount of fruit growing and vegetable gardening takes place. In common with another hon. Member, I received a deputation yesterday in which it was put to me quite plainly that unless some relief was given on the question of anthracite coal, in the event of our experiencing cold weather next week there would be a possibility of five or six thousand men being thrown out of work and the result of their labour for the past four months utterly lost. Anyone who keeps a greenhouse knows that if once the temperature goes down that is the end of what is under the glass. These men that I am speaking of represent a
large industry. The whole of the Lea Valley is occupied by them. It is their principal industry, and they are so short of anthracite, without which they cannot keep their glasshouses heated, that in some cases they have only three days' supply, and it is only by the grace of God, exemplified in the weather we have had, that they have not lost their crops now. It is not by the aid of the Ministry of Transport or the Coal Controller. The weather has been known to turn particularly bitter immediately after Easter. Unless something is done these men will be absolutely robbed of their livelihood and a vast amount of valuable produce will be lost in the way of food production. If I go to the Coal Controller, he tells me he cannot get any wagons. If I go to the Board of Trade, and ask why they are exporting it, as they are in thousands of tons a week, he says they have to export it because the transport facilities in this country as so bad. They both blame the right hon. Gentleman. By spending five minutes upon it, and ascertaining what the facts really are, he may be able to relieve that state of affairs in the Lea Valley. Generally speaking, the transport of this country is blamed for all our troubles, and not only hon. Members but the whole country is looking to the present Minister to justify not only the ever-increasing staff—they do not grudge it so long as it is efficiently administered—but the ever-increasing cost of the Department. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be driven, even by any remarks that I or any other hon. Members may make in their desire to get immediate relief for some very pressing thing, to depart from what I trust is in his mind, a comprehensive policy of the canal and road industry which will come to fruition in about five years' time or even longer—not some hastily patched-up policy, but a real comprehensive policy of transport for the whole country which will prevent the recurrence of what we have suffered from not only during the War, but even more since?

Mr. ATKEY: A fortnight ago I drew attention to three items which were of considerable importance to the constituency I represent. I think I am entitled to complain of the way those subjects have been dealt with, or rather have failed to be dealt with, by the Minister of Transport, for on two of them no answer was given at all nor any
information vouchsafed in reply to my request. Again I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can afford to the commercial community of Nottingham who are season ticket holders any information with regard to the inter-availability facilities which have prevailed for some time past as between the Midland and the Great Central Railway. Those facilities are still in being, but most of the permits which have recently been issued by the Great Central Railway are timed to expire on the 31st of this month. Hitherto they have been timed to expire on the same date as the Midland Railway season tickets expire. Now they are all timed to expire on 31st March and there is considerable apprehension in the minds of a great number of business men, who find these inter-availability facilities of very great importance, as to what is going to happen after 31st March. I am sure it will be of considerable interest to the commercial community if the Minister of Transport will give us any idea whether as part of his general policy he proposes to make these facilities available when there are two or three railways serving any particular business centre. One of the first steps the Government took when war broke out was to make season tickets inter-available on all the railways, and it would be a very wise decision and one which would meet the convenience of the business community if the Minister of Transport could re-introduce that system.
The second point, which concerns not only the people of Nottingham, but the midland counties, and has been the subject of agitation for over 40 years, is the improvement of the navigation of the River Trent. After many years the corporation succeeded in getting Parliamentary powers to improve the river, and everything is in line for the work to be at once proceeded with. It would find employment for a considerable number of people. Its object commends itself to every section of the community. Here is a little chapter of improved transport which he could put into practical politics without delay, and I hope he will see his way to enable the corporation to proceed with the scheme. The powers they have obtained are somewhat unique inasmuch as they are compulsory powers to proceed. In the ordinary way a corporation may obtain powers for certain work to be done. If they do not proceed with the work nothing happens except that the
powers lapse. In this case when the powers were obtained the corporation entered into an agreement under seal with the Trent Navigation Company that they would carry out these works within a stated period. They are anxious to proceed, and I hope the Ministry of Transport may be able to facilitate that operation.
5.0 P.M.
The third item on the Agenda is not unknown to the House. Apparently it so obsessed the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary that in his reply he suggested that my preliminary remarks on the two subjects to which I have referred were really in the nature of a preface or a mere introduction to the real pith of my speech. I am delighted to think that the question to which I now propose to allude is one that so fills the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary that he clean forgot to mention the two other subjects with which I have dealt. Those two subjects are really regarded as very serious from the point of view of the parties concerned, and I hope that, in spite of the great attention which I know the right hon. Gentleman will pay to the items now under consideration, he will not entirely forget the other points I have mentioned. I think I am entitled to complain of the way this subject has been handled. The point to which I now refer is the action of the Midland Railway in closing an exit from their station which had been a highway for many thousands of railway travellers ever since the station was built. I first asked a question on this subject in July last. Had the reply shown any desire to give reasonable consideration, or any relation to the truth of the situation, no more would have been heard about it. I have far more congenial and far more important work to do than to waste time in asking questions, but if the answers are incorrect or unreasonable I do not propose to leave the matter there. In the interests of truth, among other virtues, I shall make it part of my duty to pursue the subject until I have been able to show the Government that they are wrong or until they have condescended to come down to earth and to explain the reason for their action. The Parliamentary Secretary said that I had threatened to ask questions week after week until I got my own way. That is absolutely untrue. If a suggestion or an indication of my
future policy is to be treated as a threat, I cannot be held responsible for that. It may be bad tactics to give one's programme away, but I did not intend what I said to be in any sense in the nature of a threat. It would be very improper for me to attempt such a policy, and when the Parliamentary Secretary says that I propose to do this until I get my own way, I do protest that it is a most improper interpretation of the facts.
This question does not affect me in the least degree from my own point of view. What I have to complain about is that, on a subject of this character, the Ministry are apparently more influenced by the personal attitude of a Member of this House than they are by the facts of the case. All that I desire to do is to draw the attention of the Minister to the facts, and I have pointed out that so long as the present state of affairs obtain there will be in the city of Nottingham two or three thousand people every day who feel that they have a grievance, who suffer loss of time and loss of convenience, and to whom no sort of sympathy or explanation has been given by the Ministry of Transport. If I am a representative of the people it is obvious that so long as they are discontented, so long as I am called upon week after week by people who ask me to press the matter and not to let it rest, it is my duty to draw attention to it. I have been encouraged to proceed upon that campaign by right hon. Gentlemen who adorn that Front Bench. They know the secrets of Government, and have been kind enough to advise me that the only possible way of moving a Government Department which is inspired by an official of a railway company is to hammer at it for long enough, and in the end one will succeed. It is upon that plan that I have been proceeding, without desiring to use any threat. That is the last thing in the world I would do. It is only fair to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that it is not I who am proceeding to worry him, but it is the fact that he, as the Minister, is responsible for worrying two or three thousand people in Nottingham every day. If he thinks that that sort of thing can prevail without any sort of reprisal, he is entitled to another think. The Parliamentary Society said that it would be very improper for a
Minister to take the action I have suggested, because some Member said he was going to worry the Minister until he got his own way. I take very serious exception to that statement.
I complain of the way in which the Minister has answered some of the questions which I have put upon this subject On Monday I asked him how many men would be required if this exit was opened. There is a general view in Nottingham that the railway companies have not employed as many disabled returned men as they might, and this particular job is suitable for the employment of men of that kind. After many questions I have obtained information as to the cost, and I proceeded further by asking how many men would be required to work the exit. He replied, "I do not think any useful purpose will be served by supplementing the information and answers already given on this subject." That is very interesting as an indication of the state of mind of my right hon. Friend, but I asked for facts, and a Member of this House is entitled to be supplied by a Minister with ordinary plain facts "Therefore, while I am interested to know that he does not think any useful purpose would be served, I ask him to give me the information because I think a useful purpose would be served. On this subject, as upon others, information helps one to form a general opinion. I also asked for information in regard to the amount of money now being collected from the public in Nottingham in the way of platform tickets. This is an entirely new system so far as we are concerned. The closed station was inconvenient enough, but now people who desire to see their friends depart or to meet incoming visitors have to pay 1d. to get on to the platform. It occurred to me that as one of the objections to the opening of the exit has been that of expense, a proper way of spending the funds now collected by the Midland Co. from, people who go on to the platform would be to use it in defraying the alleged cost in connexion with the opening of the exit. Therefore I asked a very simple question and he replied, I am not aware of the date when the Midland Railway Company's station became a closed one, nor the amount received by the Company from platform tickets." I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would suggest the appointment of another
Director-General to furnish information required by a Member of this House, but it seems to me to answer this question would have been a very simple matter. The information may not have been exactly within his knowledge, but it might have been obtained very readily.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not fall into the error of misunderstanding the situation as did the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not want to be a nuisance to any Minister. I merely desire to render some little practical service to the people who sent me here, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of these people, against whom no case has been made out. The Minister is being advised by an official of the railway company, and he is standing on that advice, against the advice I have brought to him and against the resolutions of the City Council of Nottingham, the Chambers of Commerce in Nottingham, and many other trade associations in Nottingham. All these people who are interested are organising a petition, which I shall present in the near future, to which will be attached the signatures of 20,000 people who are inconvenienced, and I shall ask the House to weigh up for the benefit of the Minister of Transport the representations made, and to express the opinion that the wishes and desires of all these people should outweigh the advice which the Minister receives from one minor railway official. If this House cannot be a representative institution to carry out the wishes of the people, but is to be subject to the dictates of bureaucratic officials, then many of us are sadly wasting our time. I did not come here to waste my time. I came to assist the Government to carry on the work of the country, and I am willing to assist the Minister of Transport in any way if he cares to call upon me; and I feel satisfied that if he and other Members of the Government, instead of setting at defiance, spurning, turning down, snubbing and ill-treating the ordinary Members of this House, would realise that they have come here with a certain amount of brains and ability to assist them, and if they would use that as an asset, the Government would be very greatly advantaged and the ordinary Member would feel that he was to a certain extent justifying the position in which he has been placed.

Mr. JODRELL: I desire to support very strongly the remarks which were made by the hon. Member for Middles brough (Mr. T. Thomson). He has dealt with the condition of affairs in the North-East of England caused by the shortage of trucks. I do not propose to labour that point, but I must draw attention to the state of affairs in the port of King's Lynn. During the past winter there has been a shortage of transport trucks. Not only have the timber firms of that port been unable to carry on their business, but the silicate sand firms in the neighbourhood, who are a very important section of the community, have only been able to obtain 10 per cent. of the trucks they need. I am well aware of the difficulties of my right hon. Friend in arranging these matters, but it is poor consolation to a large section of the people of a borough which has no other means of subsistence to find workmen turned off for a week in the hardest part of the year, and at a time when they are being asked by the Government and everybody else to do more work that they should be stopped by a thing over which they have no control, namely, the shortage of trucks. No one appreciates more than I do the ability, the adroitness, and the capacity that has been shown since my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary took office, and anyone who has heard his speeches must congratulate him and the right hon. Gentleman, but when his adroitness consists in being able to pass on correspondence to the railway companies and to throw upon them a burden—I do not say a burden they are unable to carry, but which they do not altogether quite deserve—it is poor consolation to those who have to suffer at the port of King's Lynn. I have this morning received letters from two firms of timber merchants there stating that they have had to turn off their men for a week for want of trucks, and I have a letter from a large number of workmen complaining that they are entirely out of work and with no means of getting work elsewhere. I have besides that letters from many individuals throughout the town. I have mentioned this matter during a considerable time to minor officials both at the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport. I have also been in communication this afternoon with the railway company. They promised a train of
trucks yesterday. That train of trucks, I am told to-day, has not yet started. That is very poor consolation to the Borough of King's Lynn. The right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity of gaining the undying gratitude of those men who are out of work and of those contractors and firms, and he will justify the existence of his Department by putting pressure on the railway companies and making them do what they ought to do, supply the trucks that are required.

Colonel BOWLES: I wish to emphasise what has been put forward by my two colleagues (Brigadier-General Colvin and Mr. Billing) from the Lea valley. The want of coal in the whole of that valley has been a very serious item. In fact, one gets innumerable letters on the subject. I did take steps some time ago to, what I may call, go over the head of the Minister and make an appeal at last to the railway companies to see if something could be done. Whether it is due to a shortage of trucks, or whatever the cause may be, there is this difficulty Now that we have a Minister of Transport the public naturally think that if there is a shortage of transport in any particular area Members of Parliament are considered responsible for that shortage, and the onus and odium that sometimes used to rest on the railway companies now naturally rest on the Ministry of Transport. I do not wish to re-echo the arguments that have already been used, but I do wish to emphasise the absolute necessity of something being done to ensure a better supply of coal to the whole of that Lea valley.

Major-General SEELY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a very definite question. But before doing so, may I be allowed, as one who knows something of the facts, to endorse the plea that has been made so often by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Atkey) for further facilities at Nottingham station. I have never said anything about this before, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that all the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend, and that the inconvenience caused to the public in a place which is near my own constituency is very great, and I cannot understand why he cannot put this matter right. I would urge him in the strongest terms to get rid of whatever technical difficulties there
may be. I assure him that if he does so he will do a good deed in what is a small matter, but one which nevertheless causes great inconvenience to many thousands of people in a great industrial centre. The principal question to which I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is the extraordinary position into which air transport has fallen. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that he was at one time very anxious to take charge of air transport as well as other forms of transport. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] It was so stated in the Press.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir E. Geddes): I never wanted air transport.

Major-General SEELY: I am in a little difficulty in this matter, because no one must ever disclose secrets which he has obtained in Government circles, but it is a matter of common knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman was put in his present position to control transport by land, sea and air. If he says he did not wish it, all I can say is that his Department wished it and put forward a claim. I am sorry now, after all that has happened, that his Department, which acted apparently without his knowledge, did not succeed, because this, which is one of the most vitally important means of transport, is now absolutely dying of inanition in this country though not in others. I would not base my plea as to the importance of air transport on the service which the air renders in time of trouble and strife. I think that that would be a great mistake. My right hon. Friend knows very well that at the time of the late railway strike railway transport was freely used in order to maintain communications, but if anybody based a plea for a particular scheme of transport on the ground that it is of importance in times of industrial disturbance he would get little support from the more sensible members of the community. It is true that in times of trouble air transport is of value, but so are other means of transport, and I would never base the plea of air transport on the ground that it can function when others cannot, first because it is undesirable to state it even if it were true, and second, because it is not true. But in Germany, France, the United States, Italy, and even in Russia, air lines are operating regularly from day to day. In
England there is only one. That is a Continental service, and that is in great danger of disappearing altogether.
The right hon. Gentleman interrupted me to say that he never wanted the air. Now that he has had time to think it over, I am sure that he will remember the time of which I speak when for the best and weightiest reasons he said that sea, land and air transport were all one problem. Alone among the nations we are neglecting it, with the result that it is disappearing. The, other day the Secretary of State for War, in reply to me, said that we are going to let commercial transport by air fly by itself. That is a fatal policy. I would point out to the House this country. This country was confronted when the War ended with this dilemma. If we left the development of air transport to the air machines produced during the War, the thing could not pay and it would decay. If, on the other hand, we waited until peace machines had been devised suitable for the purposes of my right hon. Friend as Minister of Transport, there would be an interregnum of two, five, or perhaps ten years during which all the good brains that had been devoted to this problem would go into other channels. In France, Germany, America, Italy, and even in Russia, they said, "This will not do, and we have got to keep these good brains at work in trying to devise the best new means for air travel for peace purposes. Therefore, one way or another, either by subsidising air routes or giving experimental orders for new machines, or by diverting our mail service to air routes and charging the same sum as for any other routes, and making the rest a charge on the Exchequer, or by any other means we will bridge that gap." Here in England alone among the great nations we have not attempted to bridge that gap.
The right hon. Gentleman is a great authority on transport. I do not speak as a hostile critic. I know what he did during the War. It so happens that when I was for a short time out of the line with the Canadians under my command, I went to see what was then called Geddesburg, and the arrangement and plans made by the right hon. Gentleman for improving the transport on the Western Front, and I would like to say that I am quite sure, as the thing was so near, that the success of our arms, on the Western Front was largely due to the measures and
efforts of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not speak as a hostile critic or as one hostile to the right hon. Gentleman, for I pay a devoted tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the great work which he did during the most critical time of the War, of which I happen to have some knowledge, owing to the fact that I was there and knew what was going on; but I appeal to the Minister of Transport to bend his mind to this whole problem, and although air matters are not under his direct control, air transport must be as all these transport questions are. What is going to stop the process of rapid disintegration and prevent all the best brains which know how to devise good machines for air transport being lost to this country, while France, Germany, Italy and America are continuing the process of air development?
It is all very well to say "let the thing settle itself." Of course, one would do so if it were an ordinary matter. It would do very well for the right hon. Gentleman to reply, "let all means of transport solve themselves in accordance with what pays the best." But that will not do here. Why are France, Germany, Italy, and "Russia, all countries much poorer than ourselves, going to the expense of either giving big experimental orders or adopting other measures, but for the obvious reason that if we allow the whole of our means of air transport to wither away and we ever have a fresh war, we shall be landed in this absurd position, that the most potent arm for warlike purposes will be in the possession of our foes, while we have none of them ourselves. In the case of the sea, with which the right hon. Gentleman has some acquaintance as First Sea Lord, it is very difficult to convert merchant vessels into war vessels. There are all kinds of problems of scantlings and stressings, with which he and I are very familial, which render it very difficult to mount even a 6-inch gun on an ordinary vessel. The case of aircraft is wholly different. Anything that will carry mails in the air will carry very appropriate means of offence in time of war.
If I appear to labour the point in this House I think that I may be forgiven, in view of the fact that every word which I have ventured to prophesy during the last few weeks or months has come true to the letter. I said only the other day that all our transport facilities were in
process of decay. Since then Mr. Holt Thomas has resigned, and his whole concern has been handed over, I think, to the British Small Arms Company. I have not seen Mr. Thomas for weeks. I do not know in the least how it affects him, I have got no interest in any of these concerns, but I do put this. If the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Transport, allows our air transport to wither and to decay and takes no steps to stop it, we shall, within the next few months, be in a position of grave peril as compared with our late enemies and as compared with our neighbours across the water. We have always regarded it as essential hitherto that Britain on the sea should have such a place that no one can argue with her without knowing that she has a great and potent weapon, both of warships and of other ships, which are a card in the game. It would be a very serious thing for this country if in the near future, in any argument that took place between this and any other country, that other country had the cards and we had none at all. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who has clear ideas on the value of Air Transport, who was largely responsible for the setting up of the Aerial Transport Committee, not to forget this matter.

Sir E. GEODES: I would like to reply to my right hon. Friend on the subject of the air and the Ministry of Transport's connection with it. First, I would like to thank him for the extremely kind way in which he referred to what I was able to do in France. His recollection that I wanted to take the air into the Ministry of Transport is incorrect. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind on the subject, but I have not changed mine. I would rather the air remained where it is. I am sorry, therefore, that speaking for the Ministry of Transport I can give no hope on that particular subject, but I have no doubt that those who are responsible for air transport will take note of what he says. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Atkey) asked about the inter-availability of tickets. That was a war measure due to the restriction of train facilities, and certainly it will not be extended. The question whether it should be slowly withdrawn as the services improve is under consideration. As to Trent navigation, that is a matter in
which finance comes very largely. The whole question of canals will have to be dealt with as one. If there is anything in particular in connection with Trent navigation with which we can deal immediately I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will see me about it. As to Nottingham station, I feel sure that everyone wishes, including myself, that success may crown the crusades which my hon. Friend is waging, and now that he has an ally in my right hon. Friend (Major-General Seely) I think I shall have to join them and see what can be done. Another hon. Member drew attention to the serious shortage of coal for tomato growing in the Lea Valley. I have not heard about it, but I can undertake most wholeheartedly to look into the matter, because it would be a very serious thing if late frosts spoilt the crop. As regards the provision of grain silos, to which another hon. Member referred, this has hitherto been mainly a matter either for dock authorities or for private undertakings. I shall be very glad to have his help and any suggestions he can make. I agree that the storage of grain in the country is very desirable.
The question of rear lamps on bicycles has been raised. We have here an example of the difficulty of this subject. One hon. Member was against the carrying of lamps at the rear of cycles and the other hon. Member was not. The question of lighting is being considered by a Committee, which is also considering the regulation of motor traffic on the roads, and other things. As was stated, I think it is mainly a question of safety to the cyclist. If you abolish the rear lamp on the bicycle I am afraid it is essential that you should permit brilliant head lights to remain on motor cars. The brilliant head light on a motor car is a serious danger because it blinds people. I am sure the Committee to which I have referred will take every possible means of entertaining the views of cyclists. I come next to the very able statement made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson) as to particular difficulties in transport in his district. The hon. Member said he would not generalise. That is a very good line to take, if you are attacking a great organisation where certain mistakes are bound to occur. I regret very much the position of the steel works in the hon. Member's district. They have a trouble entirely their own
and it is an admitted trouble. The reason is, that they require a particular kind of wagon. During the War bolster wagons were not wanted. None were built during the War and none were replaced. Every possible step is being taken to increase the supply of such wagons. There are 100 bolster wagons still untraced on the continent of Europe, among the thousands of wagons that remain here, but that is not a very big thing in the general shortage.
My hon. Friend said that matters were going from bad to worse, particularly on the N.E. Railway serving his district. They are not really going from bad to worse. The accumulation of stocks has been arrested since 6th March. So far as the North-Eastern district is concerned I will give a figure. I am going to make comparisons on the only high standard that is possible. I will compare on the 1913 basis. The year 1013 was the highest year in trade and railway working that this country has ever had; it was a boom year in passengers and goods. The North-Eastern Railway carried, in the month of December, 1919, nearly 10 per cent. higher tonnage, irrespective of distance—and it is going a long distance—than they carried in December, 1913. The figures are: 1,457,000 tons in December, 1913, and 1,587,000 tons in 1919. The question of the bolster wagons is receiving attention. I hope that, as the weeks pass, my hon. Friend will have the satisfaction of seeing that the interests he represents so ably are getting better results.

Mr. THOMSON: How many wagons are there in France—not bolster wagons only?

Sir E. GEDDES: Altogether, I think there are about 12,000 lying in France, but I will come to that question later. I would like, on this occasion, to add to the excellent and lucid and comprehensive statement which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made to the House when I was absent, as has been pointed out, "golfing'—not without reason. I would remind the House that the Ministry of Transport, although it was talked of for some time before, came into existence between five and six months ago. I would ask the House to remember that. I divide the work of the Ministry of Transport into two parts, one dealing with the future and the other
dealing with the present situation. As to the future, you could have started a Royal Commission and over a long period it could have taken lots of evidence. But the Government did not adopt that way. They decided to do it departmentally. The problem calls for a great deal of technical investigation. The proposals of myself have reached the stage that they have been submitted to the Cabinet, and they deal with the transport of the country as a whole. Those proposals have been referred back to me to reconsider six points, to which I think I have now an answer. I have made that amount of progress. I do not propose to say what the proposals arc. At the same time we are investigating, very largely with the help of the railways companies' technical officers, such things as the loading gauge, the regrouping of services, the electrification of railways, and the directions in which, in conformity with the policy recommended, future economy in the working of railways can be attained, the object being so to organise the railways as to work for the creation of traffic and not the piracy of traffic by one from the other. In so far as that work is concerned, the country and the House will have to judge, when the results are placed before it, whether we have done well or ill. It is impossible on an occasion like this to embark on a statement covering the future in that way.
Let us consider what the Ministry is doing to deal with the situation to-day. First of all, I would like to answer one or two points left over in a Debate on the Supplementary Estimates. Some stress was laid upon the fact that some members of the staff of the Ministry were paid higher than other members, that some of the salaries seemed out of relation to other salaries. The explanation of that is this. In forming the staff of the Ministry I had to consider that there are certain temporary duties which the Ministry has to perform because of the present control of railways. Wherever possible those high officers of the Ministry were appointed on a temporary non-pensionable basis, and if eventually the State decides upon a policy as to transportation which does not require anything like the present staff in the Ministry, the temporary appointments will all be available for reduction. It was therefore for that purpose and that purpose only that the difference in salary
was fixed. As to Treasury control this House naturally is looking with a very jealous eye upon all expenditure at the present time, and I would like to point out that we have in the Ministry of Transport what I venture to think myself is a model form of control of expenditure, and a model which I fear very few Departments will be able to attain and for this reason. We have a Treasury officer living in the Department with us, and entirely independent of the Ministry. That has been done at my request by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That officer is Sir Hardman Lever, who has got a reputation in both hemispheres and who at great person sacrifice came to undertake this work largely at my personal request in order to ensure that during these difficult years, with vast sums of money involved, we shall place the Treasury in the most understanding position by drawing one of the very best men out of private practice. Sir Hardman Lever, who is a Treasury officer, not of the Ministry, but in it, sees every set of papers and can obtain every financial statement and arrangement. I had thought that that arrangement would have carried confidence, but apparently even the strict Treasury control does not carry confidence in the check upon expenditure.
So far as the present situation is concerned, it is the railways which concern the country most, and what the railways do. I would first remind the House that this country relied before the War very largely upon coastal shipping. It is common knowledge that coastal shipping has not picked up to its pre-War level. I am not giving that as an excuse, and I do not think the House will consider that I need any excuse before I sit down. The pre-War load of coastal shipping has not, as I say, been picked up, and the railways are being asked to undertake it. They are bringing coal from Northumberland and Durham to London, and from Wales to London in quantities never dreamed of before the War, and from Wales to Lancashire and Derbyshire because stocks were not accumulated before the great demand came. That is all putting a load on the railways, and there are many other ways I could give, which they were never designed to carry, and which is something new. I must apologise for going through these details, but I want to get the railway situation before the House. We have
had five years' depletion upon the railways of plant, rails, rolling stock, locomotives, staff officers and men. The sheds of the warehouses were choked with stores, and the terminals, both railway-owned and dock-owned and privately owned, were also choked. We had an eight hours' day suddenly put on the railways, and on the docks and on industry generally. There was a total disorganisation of trade which was flowing in ways in which it had never flown before and going distances which it never went before.
There was another thing we had to face, and I would like to bring this to the notice of the House because it is sometimes forgotten. The present guarantee of the nett receipts of the railways, the nett revenue, was given for two years after the termination of the War by a letter dater 1916 from Mr. Runciman, who was then President of the Board of Trade. The present control of the railways is not the creation of this Government, but this Government honoured the pledge, and it is really rather humorous when one realises what was said when the Ministry of Transport Act was passed. The Ministry of Transport Act has already by its passing decreased that guarantee by a year. The War is not officially terminated, and the Act lays down two years after the passing of the Act so that it has reduced the guarantee by one year. I would ask the House to think what it means when you say that you guarantee the nett receipts of an undertaking. It means that for seven or eight years in this case, in a time of undreamt of dislocation with entirely disorganised staffs, you have no direct incentive to economy on the part of those operating the lines. I am not suggesting for a moment that that is going to end to the detriment of the taxpayer intentionally, but you cannot get away from the point that as long as human nature is what it is you want a direct incentive to good management. When you get a direct incentive, whether it be in profits or advantages, it is only then you get good management. That incentive has not existed since the beginning of the War. Patriotism and the desire to work the traffic existed, but the incentive to economy and efficiency did not exist. There was nothing but devotion to duty. I think when I sit down that the House will agree with me that the railway service, management and staff, have discharged their duties with great
patriotism and great zeal. But there was no incentive which must either take the form of advantage or profit. There was no way in which you could praise a railway for what it had done except to say that you had a comfortable journey or arrived to time. All of us who know anything about the management of big concerns know that you must have comprehensive figures before you can apply any test to the management of a huge undertaking. There were no figures at all, practically speaking, kept during the War. When the Ministry of Transport came into being we did not know what the railways were carrying, as the figures were not taken out because of the difficulties as to staff during the War. There were no records or statistics, and we had to start from the bottom. Again, perhaps British railways—and this is a matter of controversy as old as the hills—never kept the very best kind of statistics.
In that condition, after five years and with possibly two or three more of guaranteed net receipts and with depleted staffs, you have a property put at £1,200,000,000, for which the taxpayer is responsible for the expenditure of about £200,000,000 per year. I am not trying to magnify the figures, but the incomings amount to about £250,000,000 and the outgoings £200,000,000. I ask the House to consider the problem that confronted the Ministry of Transport when it came into being officially. During the War there was no expenditure that was not absolutely necessary, and there was no betterment expenditure which could possibly be avoided and no capital expenditure. The maintenance was vastly in arrears. During the War the check on this expenditure, every penny of which came out of the taxpayers' pocket, was kept by the railway accountants, who honestly and patriotically checked each other. A checked B and B checked C to see that the accounts were honestly and fairly rendered. That was the check on the guarantee that the country had to see that the taxpayers' money was not being spent on betterment, and that the revenue accounts were fair and reasonable. At the end of the War, not officially but after the fighting stopped, with the heightening of Treasury control, and when the Ministry of Transport came into being, it was obviously wrong that that should go on any more, and it was not fair to those men to ask them to check that vast
amount of money of £200,000,000 outgoings and £250,000,000 income, at present day rates, and to leave them to decide between their employers, the owners of the undertaking and the State.
6.0 P.M.
So, with the Treasury, we decided that there must be a proper systematic check on this vast expenditure. It was more than the expenditure I have given, because during the War maintenance had been very low, and a cash sum of £36,000,000 had been put by by the railways, with the Government's consent, to make good arrears of maintenance. That cash sum of £36,000,000 is in the coffers of the railway companies to-day, less anything spent recently. That represents 115 per cent. of their pre-war maintenance and renewal expenses, but under agreements which were made from time to time, and which are very complicated, and which I propose to issue during the recess as a White Paper, as it is very desirable that the House should know what agreements were, entered into. The State has got to make good arrears of maintenance during the period of control at the cost at the time the arrears are made up. Look what that means. As the railways regain their prewar condition, whoever is safeguarding the interests of the State, dealing with the railways on one side and the shareholders on the other, that trustee of these large sums of money, which you may take it are certainly very largely in excess of £36,000,000 already, has to see whether it is revenue expenditure, arrears or current or betterment or capital expenditure. That means the technical examination of every large scheme, since you may let the small ones pass. That is what a very large proportion of the Ministry of Transport staff is doing to-day. Great as is my faith and trust in the railways, and railway officers I was not prepared to go on leaving it entirely to them to settle the items of this vast expenditure of money. The Treasury were not prepared to go on in that way, and the railways agreed that it was right that we should have a check. We have accountants doing so. Our accountant sits with their accountant to examine expenditure, and we have to check every large item. That is a side of the activities of the Ministry which I think few Members of the House have realised. They may have thought it is Treasury work, but it is Ministry of Transport work, and I say without hesi-
tation that 90 per cent. of the cost of the Ministry of Transport is justifiable on that work alone, and I invite the Committee on Public Expenditure to scrutinise what is being done. There is also the estimated revenue for the current financial year, which shows a deficit of £45,000,000. It is easy to say, "Put up the rates," but it is not so easy to say how you are going to do it, and that is another side where a great deal has had to be done in the way of investigation, with the assistance of the Committee presided over by Mr. Gore-Browne, the eminent K.C., which is dealing with these rates, both for the present and the future. There, again, there has necessarily been a great deal of reference to the staff of the Ministry. I have no doubt myself at all that there has seldom been a check more economically carried out, and the Treasury agree with me that that is so.
I would like to give one example to try and bring to the mind of the House the diverse problems that must necessarily come before anyone considering this great expenditure, and we come down from the hundreds of millions, which I have tried to speak of with all modesty and without the megalomania of which I am accused by those best able to diagnose the disease, to a smaller item of £5,000,000, and this is to illustrate the diversity of the questions we have to consider. The income from the railway hotels, which are to-day run at the profit or loss of the taxpayer—the gross takings of the railway hotels are £5,500,000, and the net income is £750,000. It is not an inconsiderable item for us to say, "Now let us see what are the prices that the railways are charging for wines and cigars." There are two policies. I am not sure that if I were managing a railway I would not say, "I lost all my trade at this hotel in the War, and I would like to popularise it again, so I will go on selling champagne, and cigars, and dinners below cost price." I would thus get back my steady customers; but while that would be a thoroughly justifiable and sound course to pursue, the State would be paying for the popularisation. There is another class of activity which we have to undertake today to an increasing extent. Unfortunately, although the Government control is blamed for the present financial position of the railways, there are other
and uncontrolled transport undertakings which are in a similar state financially. There is practically no tramway system in the country, municipal or company-owned, that has not to come to Parliament to make increased charges. They cannot meet the reasonable increases of wages to their men, which the industrial councils have agreed are reasonable, until their statutory powers are increased. If that is to proceed by Private Bill legislation, without the most careful technical and accounting investigation, it will be an interminable process. The Committees could never arrive at as accurate a decision in a reasonable time as they could if assisted by thorough technical and accounting investigation. Take, for instance, the Bill which is being promoted by the Underground Electric Railway Combine. There were two accountants for six or seven weeks working at a report on that for the London Traffic Committee, a financial report which will be of infinite value to the Committee which will consider it upstairs after Second Reading. That kind of work is being thrust upon us every day. It is invaluable work, and it is largely on that that the staff is employed.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the information be given to the House on the Second Reading?

Sir E. GEDDES: I believe it has already been laid on the Table with the Report on London traffic. It has been published. Now I would like to come to something which is a little nearer the day-to-day needs of the country. So far I have been explaining how the Ministry justifies its temporary and some of its permanent staff on saving the taxpayers' pocket. It is a vast trust, and I believe it is being well and faithfully performed for the taxpayer. About 95 per cent. of the questions addressed to me, either in this House or less formally by letter or verbally, are on the subject of what the railways are carrying, on what is called in the papers traffic chaos, failure, and breakdown. I have taken out figures which I wish to give the House, and to say in giving them that I believe they are as straightforward and honest as any figures that I can give. They represent, I believe, a fair picture of what the railways are doing. I have taken the 16 principal railways, which form 95 per cent. of the total, and I am proceeding on the basis that for the moment, at any rate,
if the railways can attain in the reasonably near future, or have already attained, the 1913 basis, which was the highest year and an abnormally high year, they are not doing badly as a recovery from the War, but not, of course, as their ultimate goal. Remember, they are being asked to do things they never did before the War, and you cannot ask a concern both to make good five or six years of the ravages of war and to do something better than they did before at the same time. We must be reasonable.
I will take wagons. Hon. Members say, "What are you doing to increase wagons?" On the 30th June, 1919, there were 650,000 wagons belonging to the railways in the country, a deficiency on December, 1913, of 45,000. In September, 1919, that 45,000 had come down to 43,400. In December, 1919, the deficiency was down to 19,000, so that from June to December, 1919, the deficiency of rolling stock in the service came down from 45,000 to 19,000,. and it is still going down very fast. That is partly new construction, but new construction, of course, has not reached anything like the full flood of deliveries as yet. Let us take the orders for new wagons, and the House should remember that roughly 25,000 wagons a year was the normal replacement and augmentation of stock before the War. On the 30th Juno, 1919, orders had been placed in the companies' own shops and with private builders for 21,000 wagons. On the 31st December that had increased to 32,800 wagons, and to-day it is 40,125 wagons on order. Those orders will go on increasing, there is no doubt at all. I will ask the House to remember, in this connection, that the moulders' strike was a not inconsiderable item in considering the actual output. For the three months ending 30th November, 880 new wagons were produced per month, and for the last three months the average has been 1,668 a month, double, of new output, and I have no doubt that will improve, because a great many orders were placed in the more recent months. Let us take repairs to wagons. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) urges us to bring wagons from France. We have got to repair them as they come, and they are not coming as fast as we had hoped, but still we are overtaking the repairs in this country, and we have not overtaken, them yet. On the 30th September, 1919,
42,000 wagons were waiting for repair, or 5.7 per cent. of the total stock. In December that had come down to 24,000 wagons awaiting repair, or 3.3 per cent., and to give an indication as to what that means, I asked the American Embassy if they would give me the figure of wagons awaiting repair in America. It is necessary to remind the House that they did not suffer in their railways in the War like we did, and there was nothing like the same amount of wear and tear as here. In America 5.6 per cent. of the rolling stock is awaiting repair, and ours is down to 3.3 per cent. in this country.
Now let us take locomotives. On the 16 principal railways again, on the 30th June, 1919, there were 17,700 locomotives in use, in traffic. That was 1,100 less than at the end of 1913. By December, 1919, that deficiency had come down to 293, and it is still improving every day, and new construction is being pushed on as fast as it can be. Now I will take carriages. I confess quite frankly that the railways are not pushing on with carriages as fast as they are with other things, and advisedly so. You have got to give place to the essentials. I regret, as they do, the discomfort in which in many cases passengers are travelling, and the passenger train service must be got back to a better standard, but let us look at what is happening. We all know that the passenger fare was put up by 50 per cent., and that was done in the belief that it would check the amount of traffic. That was the object, not revenue. The railways carried in 1919, as compared with 1913—again, I would remind the House, the boom year—in passengers who bought their tickets for the journey, not season passengers, 156,000,000 more than they had ever carried in any year in their history, and in addition to that the season tickets went up by 50 per cent., which is estimated at another 100,000,000 to 150,000,000, so that to-day you may take it that the annual carriage of passengers, even at the increased fares, is nearly 300,000,000 more than in the boom year. Now let us take the tonnage. I want to show what the railways are doing when we are told about the chaos and muddle. You can only satisfactorily measure what railways are doing by taking weight with distance. I cannot give it in ton miles, because I have not got it, but I have got the gross freight receipts for the year 1919 and the year
1913, and I would remind the House that 1919 was not a year when any increase of freight rates had been made. It is on the same basis of charges, and if you take the earnings, irrespective of Government traffic altogether, the railways earned £5,000,000 more at similar rates in 1919 than what they earned in 1913. But there is a total of £21,000,000 of services performed for the Government. I am told that roughly you may take half of that—probably half is under the freight—but adding one-half, which is £10,000,000, you get 20 per cent. increase of freight on the railways. I think that is a fair figure. There may be a slight variation in the grades of the traffic, but the freights are the same.
Let me give another figure—the actual tonnage lifted. Now the actual tonnage during the last half of 1919 was affected very much by the railway strike, not only at the time of the strike, but for a time afterwards. I cannot give an actual percentage there because of that reason, but I think the House may take it that the railways actually lifted, if we make allowance for the strike, in the last half of last year a tonnage which was 10 per cent. less than in the same period of 1913. They carried it longer distances. It is not a favourable figure. It is the one blot in the statement. But I have something which, I think, will satisfy the House, and that is that it is steadily improving. The fourth quarter of 1919 showed an increase over the previous quarter of 10 per cent. in the tonnage, which went a great deal longer distances. To-day I got the returns for January of the Great Northern, the Great Western, the Lancashire and Yorkshire, the London and North-Western, and the Midland Railways, and they show another 10 per cent. up on the monthly average for the last quarter of last year. That is 10 per cent. improvement in the fourth quarter of last year, and 10 per cent. improvement this year on top of that. Then train mileage in the second half of last year is 10 per cent. up on the first half. Everything is going up.
If you take the whole position, the wagons in traffic are increasing very, very largely. Wagon repairs have improved enormously. Wagons under construction are increasing very largely, and will increase still further. The locomotive
position has improved enormously in the last six months. The freight work done is improving every month, and is now reaching figures which is vastly in excess, both as regards passengers and goods, of the highest load we ever had in 1913, and I doubt to-day whether we are not in tons lifted, after the last increase in January as indicated by the companies I gave, on top of the 1913 tonnage, and on top of that we have got 300,000,000 extra passengers. And that is the chaos and the muddle of which the railways are accused! I want to come a little bit closer to this chaos and muddle, because we have heard a good deal about the port chaos. Of course, the ports, are congested. They have the aftermath of the War. It is a very easy thing to blame the railways. I have taken London and Liverpool, the two which are most usually brought up as being in a chaotic state. I have got a special return out for those. Liverpool has got a traffic factor; she always exports less than she imports. Liverpool, consequently, always has to have more empties sent in to balance. I did not believe this figure when I got it. The traffic forwarded from Liverpool—and it is mainly dock traffic—is 26 per cent. higher over the whole of 1919 than it was in 1913. I ask the House to remember that 1919 had a lean beginning and a fat ending, and the fat ending is going on. London is a far more difficult place to work because of the congestion, but in London itself we get dock traffic from Poplar, Victoria and Albert, Mill wall, Tilbury, and East and West India Docks, exclusive of coal and coke, up by 50,000 tons, or 5 per cent. on the 1913 figures; that is 600 additional wagons per day out of Liverpool and 80 additional wagons a day out of London. I submit that those facts are satisfactory. There never will be a country where you will not find complaints against the railways. That is part of the reason the railways are there, so that you can complain about them. But, taking the whole figures, comparing what the railways are doing to-day with what they did in 1913—a phenomenal year—I say they are playing their share in the reconstruction of this country in a way that deserves credit and not blame. I would ask the House to give the credit—and I know the able and devoted staff of the Ministry of Transport would wish it—to the railway managers and the railway men.

HIGH PRICES.

Mr. HOLMES: On this Bill, it is customary for the House to change from one subject to another, and I am now going to ask it to turn its attention to the subject of high prices, in which the defects and the delays of transport are a minor contributory factor. It is true the House had a long Debate not many days ago upon this subject, but the ground was not fully explored, and, having regard to the fact that this subject is one which creates, possibly, more discussion and agitation in the country, and breeds, or may breed, unrest, I feel sure no apology is needed for once more raising the subject. In the Debate that took place on the 15th March, the various causes which were contributory to high prices were given to the House by various speakers. Amongst them were the shortage of commodities, profiteering, the inflation of currency and credit, and several minor ones, such as the one I have just mentioned, the delays and defects of transport. For one or two of those reasons the Government cannot be held responsible. The shortage of commodities, for example, is world-wide, and no one would suggest that our Government, or any other Government, was responsible for that. It is one of the unfortunate results of the War. But I want to ask the House, in the first place, to consider to what extent profiteering in this country is the cause of high prices, and also to ask whether the Government are doing all that is possible at the present time to check profiteering. The new Food Controller, in the speech he made on 15th March, said that, in his opinion, quite a small percentage of the total—that is the increased price total—is to be attributed to the operations of the profiteer.
I would venture to remind the House that the Government considered profiteering as a sufficiently important factor in the rise of prices to appoint, in the first place, a Select Committee to go into the matter, and, in the second place, to introduce and pass through this House a Bill which was called a Bill to check Profiteering. It is true that that Bill appeared to be in the nature of panic legislation. It was passed rapidly through the House with very little discussion, the Committee stage taking place between a quarter to 4 one afternoon and something like 5 o'clock the next morning. Perhaps if more time and consideration had been
given, a better Bill would have been forthcoming. Sir Auckland Geddes, on the Second Reading, said that it would do much to remove the evils which arise from the making of unreasonable profits in our domestic trade. To what extent has that Act checked profiteering? We have seen tribunals set up all over the country, shopkeepers have been harassed before those tribunals, and time and money have been spent by various people sitting upon those tribunals, with the result that 1½d., 2d. or 6d. have been ordered to be repaid by shopkeepers. Everyone knows perfectly well that that sort of thing merely touches the fringe of the profiteering problem.
There are black sheep in every fold, and there may be some amongst the shop keepers; but where they have profiteered they have profiteered in threepences and sixpences. The man who has profiteered and really affected prices has been the big man whom the Profiteering Act has not touched. Beyond these local tribunals, committees have sat and have reported on various trades and industries. When the house is burning the important thing is to get the fire out and not to hold an inquiry into the cause. The important thing last August in regard to profiteering was to stop it, and not to make an inquiry into its causes. I am going to try to show how the Government might have used this Act if they had been willing, not merely to get at the small shopkeeper, but at the big man who was responsible for the real increase of prices which are due to profiteering.
The Profiteering Act contains one good feature. This was a definition of profiteering. This definition said that profiteering was "making an unreasonable profit," and an unreasonable profit was defined as "the making of a higher rate of profit than was made by the individual in the pre-War years." That was a perpectly satisfactory definition, and one which everyone could understand. If a shopkeeper was brought before the tribunal he could defend himself by comparing the rate of profit made on a certain transaction with that made on a similar transaction in his business before the War. Unfortunately, however, that provision has not been carried out throughout all the processes of manufacture in the country. For example, an offer was made under a scheme by
which men and women's clothing was offered to the public at a reasonable rate of profit, compared to pre-War profits, and chargeable to every process of manufacture. That offer was not accepted by the Board of Trade. Consequently, increased rates of profit are being unnecessarily made in clothing throughout the country. The great difficulty of prices is that there is a huge demand from abroad for our goods. In every industry the seller and manufacturer charges the same rate to the home consumer as he charges to the foreign buyer. He says: "I can sell my goods abroad at such and such a price: why should I take less by selling them in this country?" There is one industry where we are making a distinction, and that is in the coal industry. Every hon. Member knows we are selling our exported coal at the best price we can get, while the price at home is regulated and is 10s. per ton less for domestic use than for home industrial use. That can only be done if you have Government control.
It would be ideal if in every industry in the country one could say, "Sell your goods abroad for the highest price obtainable, while at home you must keep to a certain margin of profit," so that there would always be a consistent price for every sale at home or abroad. This means Government control over every industry. I am sure that everyone would reject that as a possible solution. But there is a plan that could be adopted. It has already been adopted in more than one trade. That is that the trades themselves have been asked to take in hands their own affairs, and to get rid of the profiteers from their own ranks. When they have been appealed to to do that there are cases in which they have done so. I believe that the trades, if they were appealed to, would be able to make that differentiation between themselves, and they would sell their goods at the highest price they could get for export, and would keep down their cost here to what is a reasonable profit. In such an arrangement they would have to see that each man has his fair amount of the home trade as well as his fair amount of the export trade. I believe that by leaving them to act by and through themselves, and not attempting Government control, prices would be brought down in this country to a much more reasonable level.
There is one element which causes increased prices in very many materials which do not come under the Profiteering Act at all. That is the result of speculation. Many cases could be quoted to the House where the raw material coming from abroad has been sold three, four, or five times before it reached the manufacturer. None of these speculators need have made more than a reasonable profit, but the result of the accumulated profit of each speculator being added to the cost of the raw material has necessarily caused the price of the finished article to be unnecessarily high. When the Profiteering Act was before the House, the Government refused an Amendment which would have met this particular point; and speculation in raw material still goes on all over the country. The very fact that the profits of speculation of this sort are not subject to Income Tax or Super-tax has made it all the more preferable, and it is undoubtedly true that speculation of this sort has largely added to the high prices paid for almost every article of consumption. So I wish in the first place to say that profiteering still continues, and that the Profiteering Act has been of little avail in checking it, and that the high prices we are paying to-day are, in part, due to the operations of the profiteer.
The only other point to which I want to refer in regard to high prices is the effect which inflation of the currency and credit has in this matter. I cannot help referring to the two speeches made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House. On 7th August last he made a very striking speech in which he pointed to the position of the country in regard to finance in a very true, if somewhat despondent tone. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
I have tried to put the situation fairly to the House as I see it now. It is worse than it was when I spoke on the Budget. It is worse temporarily and to some extent permanently."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 7th August, 1919, Col. 645, Vol. 119.]
I believe that that speech had a great effect upon the country, and made people realise the necessity of spending as little money as possible, and checking, so far as they could, the extravagant habits which so many had been developing. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer undid all the good of that speech by another
which he made here on 29th October. He then said:
The position, though less good than I had expected at the time of the Budget statement, is distinctly better than I feared when I spoke in August."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1919, Col. 410, Vol. 120.]
The right hon. Gentleman finished up by saying:
No additional taxation will be required to balance future Budgets. No fresh borrowing will be required on Revenue Account after this year. Next year a substantial surplus should be available for the reduction of debt.…Our position is sound."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1919, Col. 757, Vol. 120.]
The speech of the right hon. Gentleman concluded with a peroration which I remember brought loud cheers from every quarter of the House.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The hon. Gentleman is not quoting my words?

Mr. HOLMES: Not the peroration, but the others are the words of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not the exact words before me, but I do not think my hon. Friend quoted the sentence about taxation.

Mr. HOLMES: On 29th October, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at his speech, he will find that these are the complete words of the sentence:
No additional taxation will be required to balance future Budgets.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There were other conditions?

Mr. HOLMES: Oh, quite! But the unfortunate result, I should almost say the mischievous result, of that speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October was that it was a further encouragement to people to spend money. One of the great results of the War has been to increase the purchasing power of the community as expressed in terms of money, and to reduce the volume of purchasable goods. This has been a contributary cause of the rise in prices. Money in the hands of the community does not become a danger if it is used for the purpose of sending to the Government. But if it is used to obtain consumable goods it has the effect of putting up prices, and the Chancellor's speech in October did practically say to the people that "all was
for the best in this best of possible worlds." It encouraged men and women to go on using their increased purchasing power to obtain for themselves commodities of all kinds. I venture to say that the fact that prices are higher to-day than they were in October is, in part, duo to the effect of the Chancellor's speech upon the public generally.
But the most serious cause of the inflation of the currency and credit at the present time is the fact that we have a floating debt of £1,200,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been unable to meet national expenditure out of taxation or out of national war loans of various kinds. He has got to create banking credits. It is, perhaps, well that we should remind ourselves of the operation that takes place. The Government accomplishes this by borrowing from the Bank of England on the security of Ways and Means. The bank makes an entry in its books increasing the item "Government borrowing" on the one side, and on the other increasing the item "Government securities." Let us assume that there are some ten million pounds treated in this way. This is withdrawn from the Bank of England. The Government pays it to its various creditors all over the country, and the money finds its way to the credit of the banking accounts of these various creditors. They in their turn have to demand currency notes for the payment of, at any rate, part of their wages, and they also in their turn pay out cheques to their creditors, who in turn demand currency notes for wages and other purposes. The real defect of this operation is to create £10,000,000 currency, and it is very little different from the plan which has been adopted by France in paying its creditors by the issue of new currency notes. The creation of this new currency puts so much increased purchasing power into the hands of the community. There is an increased demand for goods of which there is already a shortage, and so a rise in prices occurs The most essential thing, therefore, at the present time is to reduce the floating debt either by paying it off, or by funding it. It is necessary to add that precipitate deflation may be as dangerous as a continuance of the floating debt, I think it is generally agreed that a minimum reduction of the floating debt by £300,000,000, and its gradual further reduction month by month is of paramount importance
To my mind the reduction of £300,000,000 in the floating debt which we require immediately would already have been accomplished if the Budget of last year had been sound. In his Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer included among the receipts of the year a sum exceeding £200,000,000, which he expected to receive from the sale of the assets of the Ministry of Shipping, the Ministry of Munitions and other Government Departments. These assets were purchased in previous years out of moneys borrowed by the State, and surely it was a matter of sound finance that when such sums were repaid to the Treasury they should be specifically ear-marked for the repayment of debt. I suggest that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ear-marked those sums for debt, and had omitted them from his ordinary revenue, he would already have materially accomplished a substantial reduction in the floating debt, and he would have obtained that deflation of currency and credit which is so necessary at the present time.
It should further be recalled that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the amount of £200,000,000 was all he could reasonably expect to receive by this means, but that the value of the assets I have alluded to largely exceeded that sum and would come in later, and larger proceeds would be received during the next and the following year. That undoubtedly is correct, and therefore if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had used these sums of money for the reduction of the floating debt he would already have reduced that debt by £200,000,000, and he would at the same time have had in sight sums which would further and regularly reduce the floating debt, and would have produced that gradual and steady deflation which is so much required. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will probably say if he had not taken this £200,000,000 for his ordinary revenue it would have been necessary to raise £200,000,000 by increased taxation. That is of course true, and it is probably the best thing that has happened. When the Budget was introduced no one for a moment dreamed that the Income Tax would be left at 6s. in the pound, and no surprise would have been expressed if
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised the rate to 7s. 6d.
I know it was anticipated that the Excess Profits Duty would be reduced from 80 per cent., but nobody expected that it would be reduced to 40 per cent. The business world would have been quite satisfied if it had been reduced only to 50 per cent. But apart from this the Chancellor of the Exchequer not merely reduced the Excess Profits Duty from 80 per cent. to 40 per cent., but he dated the reduction back to the 1st January, 191S, although he announced this four months after that date. There was no necessity to go so far back as that, and if he had increased the Income Tax he would have raised this extra £200,000,000, and it would not have been difficult to find other means of taxation to have made up the difference. If he had acted in this way-he would have reduced the floating debt by over £200,000,000 at the present time. He would have decreased by extra taxation the purchasing power of the community by £200,000,000, and there would have been less demand for the goods of which there is already a great shortage, and prices would not have risen so much. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the unsound principle of his Budget, has been responsible in part for the high prices prevailing at the present time.
We must all have been struck during the past few weeks and months with the number of prospectuses announced in the daily Press for companies appealing for fresh capital, and money has poured into industrial concerns of all kinds during the past year. We can, therefore, anticipate with some degree of confidence that this money will shortly be producing goods which will relieve the shortage, and will be earning profit and providing taxes for the Exchequer. We must, however, recognise the fact that this demand for money for post-war industrial development is bringing back an unprecedented state of affairs so far as the money market is concerned. The banks have made advances to the very limit of their resources, and individuals who can offer first-class security are unable at the present time to obtain money thereon. Practically the whole financial resources of the nation are locked up in the industries, and even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted at the present time to fund the Floating Debt of £1,200,000,000 the
problem he would have to face is not what amount of interest he would have to give in order to get the money, but where the money was to come from, whatever rate of interest he offered. It behoves him therefore, in the coming year, to provide out of taxation sufficient to pay all the national expenditure, and to gradually reduce the Floating Debt, and at the same time to prevent every Government Department from spending a penny more than is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman gave a good lead to the nation last August, but he spoiled that lead by his speech in October. It is as necessary to-day as ever it was that the community shall not use their purchasing power beyond what is absolutely necessary, and the Government must practice what they preach. One of the reasons why the general community see no reason for themselves avoiding extravagance at the present time is that they believe the Government are spending money right and left with a lavish hand. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can convince the country that nothing beyond what is necessary is being spent by Government Departments, he can again appeal to the public to keep their own purchasing within the least possible limits.

Mr. E. WOOD: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does; the hon. Member rise to move the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper?

Mr. WOOD: Yes, Sir.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose—

Sir D. MACLEAN: I wish to raise a point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I presume the Chancellor of the Exchequer will now reply upon this question, and he will also reply upon the Amendment. It is just a question whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reserve his speech in order to deal with the question of prices and the discussion of the Amendment at the same time, or whether he will prefer to deal with the question of prices now and answer the arguments in connection with the Amendment later on.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am ready at once to reply to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Holmes). I am a little
embarrassed because high prices, although they formed the topic in the beginning of the hon. Member's speech, they did not constitute the main theme, and he devoted a considerable part of his speech to reviewing last year's Budget and the unwisdom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He then proceeded to deal with other matters, and if he had continued on those lines I should have asked the President of the Board of Trade to reply to the hon. Member rather than undertake the task myself. The hon. Member made some observations with which I agree. I agree with him that any suggested system of reform which involves as a necessity the universal control of all the trades in the country would really be a worse remedy than the disease. You must in the very special circumstances of the coal trade have the control we now have in existence, but to apply that kind of control to all the industries in the country would have a hampering and deadening effect on industry which none of us would contemplate.
7.0 P.M.
The hon. Member referred to the Profiteering Act. I do not wish to over-estimate its value, but I think that Act has done more than the hon. Member gives it credit for. The hon. Member's speech seemed to suggest that the value of the Profiteering Act should be measured by the number of prosecutions arising out of it, but no one would ever think of valuing the capital penalty for murder by the number of hangings which took place in a year. I should have thought the true test was the number of cases in which the Act succeeded in preventing a man who would otherwise have shown homicidal tendencies from losing his self-control. It is of course obvious that in so far as an Act which is effective to restrain action which if committed it affords the means of punishing, you can have no exact measure of its success, but it must not be supposed the Profiteering Act has had no success, because I think it has had considerable success. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was a form of control, not the one exercised over the coal trade, but a self-control which might really be useful. In this matter the Government have been active, and they have been in conference with various trades for the express purpose of getting them to exercise amongst themselves that kind of control over the supplies of those goods which are most
required in the home market. As far as imported luxuries are concerned, I do not mind that charges are made to the home consumer, and I would like the prices to prohibit their purchase altogether; but where you are dealing with goods in daily household use then a control of the kind suggested by the hon. Member, exercised by members of the trade, in consequence of which they limit their profit on those articles of common necessity to the home consumer, is, I think, a very valuable form of control. We are constantly doing that.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Has it not occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that we have rather broken an economic law by setting up an artificial export trade, in order to raise the dollar exchange by a short cut, with the result that we have depleted the home supply and created a dearth of goods for our home market and thus brought about the very high prices which we wished to avoid?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think so. As far as luxury goods are concerned, I do not imagine my hon. Friend differs from my statement. I think that luxury goods should go abroad in the largest possible proportion, and the less money spent upon them at home the better for the country at large. Whether these luxury goods are home produced or impored, even though they are not imported but are home produced, if you can find a market for them abroad at the present time you will be doing a service to the country.

Mr. SAMUEL: I was referring to necessities.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. When you come to articles of common production, then I agree, of course, that, to send abroad the whole supply of things which are in necessary daily use, even if you could do it, would be asking for trouble at home, and the situation would be very much more dangerous for us. I do not think, however, that that process has gone on to any dangerous length. As far as I know, what has happened is that manufacturers have expected, and not unreasonably, that they should obtain the world's price in whatever market they sold. I think there are reasons for urging that for particular lines of objects of com-
mon necessity at home they should forego part of the profits which the world's price would yield, and supply the public at home at more moderate rates. That is a form of control which is being exercised by certain trades amongst themselves voluntarily, either after consultation with or sometimes at the invitation of the Government, and sometimes entirely of their own accord; and whether we are assisting by such an arrangement or not, we are glad to strike at profiteering and to reduce the ill-effects which follow it. But do not let us deceive ourselves. Gross cases of profiteering strike the imagination, but not all cases of profiteering described as gross are gross. In the second place, even if you could stop profiteering altogether and completely, you would have dealt with but a very small section of the problem of high prices. I think there we are on common ground, as expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), the other day with as much clearness and directness as I have tried to express it to-night.
After all, the circumstances of trade and manufacture are affected by the altered values of money. The amount of capital locked up in business is much greater. The expense of making, handling, and transporting goods is also much greater. The services of everybody employed are more costly. It must not be supposed that every increase of to-day's prices above the pre-War prices of any article indicates that someone, or that a number of people are profiteering to the extent of the difference between the two. If, as we are constantly told, wages are only worth half what they were, then capital is only worth half what it was, and the same rule applies to all classes of the community. The hon. Member connected these high prices with the finance of the Government, and particularly with the finance of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, he realises that the inflation of credit of which he spoke is not all of it, or even a major portion of it, my personal work. At one moment he suggested it was a kind of corporation sole. He did not make it altogether clear what were my personal responsibilities.

Mr. HOLMES: Last year's Budget.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am at one with the hon. Member in desiring to reduce and keep down Ways and Means
advances. I am at one with him in desiring to reduce gradually and steadily the Unfunded Debt. But I am not at one with him as to the course he thinks it would have been prudent to adopt in the present financial year. I understand that his view is that I ought not to have taken into current revenue any part of the proceeds of the sales of stores and Government property which we have been enabled to make since the War was brought to a conclusion, and that I ought to have raised taxation to an amount equivalent to that figure. He suggested it would have been wise to have put up the Income Tax to Vs. 6d., and that nobody would have been surprised. I think there would have been considerable surprise and some indignation if I had done that last year. I differ from the hon. Gentleman fundamentally. I am not averse to raising new taxation by suitable measures and at suitable times. The actual increases which I proposed last year were estimated at something over £120,000,000, on the top of all the increases in taxation imposed by my various predecessors. Would it have been right, when in the expenditure of the current year there was included large sums directly traceable to the War, and in consequence of the War, but not part of the normal expenditure: of the country, that I should have met the whole of that by a sudden and immense increase of taxation at the same time that I have falling in resources set free from the War and of a similar abnormal character? I do not think so. I think we were entitled to set abnormal receipts against abnormal expenditure, and to employ them for the purpose of meeting that abnormal expenditure.
Where I come nearer to agreement with my hon. Friend would be in this, that I think it would be wrong to use these abnormal receipts instead of taxation to pay, not abnormal expenditure, but normal recurrent expenses. That, I think, would be wrong. It has not been done. Chancellor of Exchequer after Chancellor of Exchequer has looked in his Budget to see what would be the position if the War closed at the end of the financial year with which he was dealing, and he has made it his pride and object to produce such a revenue from taxation as, if the War ended at the close of the year, would meet the peace expenditure. In these calculations no room
was ever left for abnormal overlappings, for war expenditure does not cease when operations cease. Still, it was a good enough standard to measure effort by, and that is the standard which I set up for the normal year—a standard by which we could measure that constantly recurrent expenditure which ought to be provided for by taxation, and for which we ought not to have recourse to abnormal and fortuitous receipts. I think if the hon. Member will cast his mind back to the time at which the Budget was framed, he will see that the prospects looked less favourable for the revival of industry and trade than they have since proved to be. Very large and heavy taxation for the temporary services, such as he suggests I ought to have made at that time, might have checked the revival of trade and industry; it might, I will not say, have killed the goose which lays the golden eggs, but it might have so seriously disturbed her as to greatly affect the number which she lays. I think it was a wiser course to take the line which I adopted.
The hon. Member has referred to two speeches which I made last year—in August and October. The one in August he thought was pessimistic and wise. The October one he characterised as optimistic and unwise. There is a good deal more similarity between the two speeches than critics often realise. Both were spoken subject to conditions which were clearly-expressed. The first was at a time when too many people seemed to think that all our troubles were over, that we had a bounding revenue, and were on a wave of prosperity. But the speech concluded, if I may say so, in a note of prudent hope. In October the circumstances were different. Instead of finding, in the first place, a public which had been encouraged to think that extravagance needed no check, and that everything was for the best, I found a public which was daily having preached to it the most pessimistic accounts of our position. I spoke at a time when criticism was taking forms which were affecting our credit, not merely here, but in the world at large, and when we were being represented as being on the verge of that bankruptcy which I had said we should rush into if we continued to spend at our then existing rate and if we could not increase our then existing production. Already steps had been taken, when I spoke again in October, to secure great
reductions in expenditure. Already the revival of industry was proceeding, and prospects were becoming more favourable, and they have continued to do since. It is very difficult to use language which always observes the exact mean, not merely for the candid student in his study, but for any audience whom you happen to-be addressing. If you say that things are doing fairly well, and that with patience, perseverance, and resolution we shall overcome our difficulties, and surprise the world once again by our recuperative force and our financial strength, people hurry away and make speculative purchases of stock. If, on the other hand, you say that, if people are reckless, if the course of trade revival is interrupted by interminable or critical trade disputes, if national finance is conducted recklessly, whether by Government or by Parliament, if public extravagance goes unchecked, then we shall be in serious danger—people go out and talk as if our bankruptcy were immediate, and as if no effort of ours could save us. The truth is that we can save ourselves by our own exertions steadily pursued, but there are no short cuts to removing the ravages of war, or getting back from the immense convulsions which five years of war have caused.
I am not now going to foreshadow my next Budget. We are getting too close to the time to prophesy, and we are still too far away from it for a precise statement. There is, however, just one observation that I should like to make. The hon. Member quoted me as saying last year that there would be no need for new taxation. I do not think he quoted the whole sentence, but I rose before I expected to, and therefore I have not looked it up. The House will remember, however, that I said there would be no need for new taxation unless further expenditure were incurred which was not then provided for, or unless the House wished, as it would be very desirable that it should, to make an earlier and a greater effort towards the redemption of debt. I merely refer to that because the statement was quoted baldly, as if I had promised that there would be no new taxation. On the contrary, I more than once repeated that new expenditure meant new taxation, and I still maintain that a larger Sinking Fund than that which I have included in my figures is
very desirable for the credit of the country and the restoration of sound finance.
I have done my best to cover the observations made by the hon. Member. Time, patience, perseverance—those are the three main requisites for a happy issue from our present troubles. The danger, I think, would be great if people in this country were to get it into their heads that there was some single stroke of policy, which a really able Government could produce, which would wipe all our difficulties off the slate, and would allow everybody to slack through life for the rest of their days. That cannot be so. The world, I hope, will be a better world for the victory of the Allies in this great struggle. I hope that the lot of the masses and of the least paid among our community will be, by comparison, a better lot in the future than it has been in the past; but to think that the next ten years can be easy years for anyone is to think the impossible, and by dreaming of the impossible you distract attention from those remedies which are practicable and possible, and which ought to be daily and continuously applied.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. E. WOOD: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House, before consenting to the Second Reading of this Bill, desires to be satisfied that no improvement can be made in the machinery for the control and limitation of expenditure, as well by the supervision of the Treasury as by the informed and effective exercise of the authority of this House.
After the speech to which we have listened from the right hon. Gentleman, I feel a certain compunction in initiating a further discussion which will have the effect of inviting further remarks from him at a later stage, but I make no apology for doing that, because my view, and the view of those who are associated with me in this Amendment, is that the subject with which it deals is of such importance that no excuse is required for bringing it to the attention of the House of Commons. If it be true that finance underlies nearly all our problems to-day, it follows that the control of finance is a matter of not less importance. I ought, perhaps, to assure my right hon. Friend
that I moved this Amendment in no hostile spirit to him or to the Government. Indeed, I think the terms of the Amendment are only such as were required to keep it within the rules of order, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that I, and those with whom I am associated, have no purpose but to offer him every assistance we can in the very difficult task in which he is engaged, and, may I add, for the discharge of which I. think this House owes him a very great debt of gratitude. The utmost, therefore, that I would endeavour to do, would be, as far as possible, to render him assistance in that task.
I might, perhaps, say that, since we decided to move this Amendment, there has appeared on the Paper a Motion in the name of one of my hon. and gallant Friends (Colonel Gibbs), moving officially for a Select Committee on this subject We decided to continue: with our Amendment none the less, for the reason, if for no other, that, if that Select Committee be set up, its opportunities for usefulness will, in our judgment, be very much hampered and impaired unless, at the same time that the work is going on, it is possible to produce a real sense of responsibility and co-operation in this House itself. My right hon. Friend has often reminded us of what, indeed, is only too obvously the truth, namely, that this House is a very inconsistent body in that it always preaches economy, and hardly less regularly practices extravagance. It is, I am afraid, also true that this House is open to the temptation under which all large spenders of money labour, of devoting its efforts to small economies. We all of us have heard of the millionaire who, when faced with financial bankruptcy, sought to redress the balance by writing his letters on half sheets of paper; and I remember one such who decided to reform his whole financial balance sheet by ceasing to take in "Punch." This House did the same thing when it refused the Lord Chancellor a bath, and, on a rather larger scale, when it interfered the other day with the building of a labour exchange, I think at Manchester. I do not say that those things are not good, but we fall into error if we think they are the most important things. For this House, I would suggest, there is rather more excuse than for the, ordinary individual, because it is much
more difficult for the House to introduce and make effective a really sound system of financial control. I am bound to say that all my reflections lead me to agree with my right hon. Friend in what he has often emphasised, namely, that if we wish to pursue economy, we must build the greater part of our house upon the Treasury itself. I have heard him say on more than one occasion that the remedy is to strengthen the Treasury. I should like to ask him, when he comes to reply, if he could give the House some precise idea of what is in his mind when he uses the phrase "strengthen the Treasury"?
I do not know whether hon. Members have a very clear idea of the process by which financial expenditure is incurred, and perhaps it may not be without profit to attempt to follow an actual item of expenditure from what I may call the chrysalis stage, in the mind of some enthusiastic subordinate in a Department, until the moment when it becomes the full-fledged butterfly of an extra shilling on the Income Tax. I suppose it mostly starts somewhat in this way. An enthusiastic subordinate brings up a scheme to the departmental chief—a departmental chief, let it be observed in passing, who is probably overworked—who considers the scheme, mainly, I suppose from the point of view of policy rather than of finance. If he secures the assent of his departmental chief, which I suppose is not improbable if he presents his scheme well and is able to say that it will innure to the success and outward advantage of the Department, it goes, at some moment or other, to the Treasury for sanction. I am not very certain whether all schemes have to go to the Treasury or not, or at what stage a financial officer in the Department intervenes to exercise such control as may be within his power. I assume, however, that those stages are completed, and that the scheme is on its way to the Treasury. If the Treasury approve, there is no more to be said. If they resist, I suppose an opportunity will be found, if the ordinary channels fail, by which the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will meet and endeavour to arrange matters. Failing such an arrangement, I suppose the ultimate resort would be that the Chancellor would bring the Minister before the Cabinet. It is quite evident that no Chancellor, not even my right
hon. Friend, can be habitually bringing Ministers before the Cabinet, even if the Cabinet had time for such business.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Or Ministers bringing the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. WOOD: That no doubt is true. I should fancy the Chancellor would go before the Cabinet more willingly than the Minister. However that may be, that is reserved for extraordinary cases and therefore what I suppose would very often happen is that the Departments put up a scheme on rather more generous lines than they expect to get and the Treasury, for the sake of a quiet life, cuts it down a bit and lets it go. I have no special knowledge. I only suggest what I imagine would happen in any other walk of life. If it be true that the Treasury is the keystone of this arch of financial control, it cannot be expected to do its work properly unless, in addition to being strong itself, it can count upon what I may call the twin supports on each side of it: on the one side the Cabinet and on the other side this House. I would ask my right hon. Friend if he could give the House any information, without betraying secrets, as to what in fact the, much vaunted Cabinet control amounts to. Last autumn he referred to a Finance Committee of the Cabinet. Is that Finance Committee intended to be a permanent institution? Is it still functioning and, further, will he give us the personnel of it, as he did on that occasion, though he was careful to say it was to be no precedent for giving the names of Cabinet Committees. I ask because it was composed of five members. One was Sir' Auckland Geddes and another was Lord Milner, who has been absent from the country for a very long time, and it would interest the House to know whether the Finance Committee has been maintained in efficient working.
I should like to say a word or two about the other twin support, the House of Commons. I am quite definitely of the opinion that the House of Commons is useless at detail in finance. When they attempt to raise it they can be beaten every time by the Minister, and the only thing they achieve by raising detail is not to save that year, but to have such an intimidating effect, perhaps, upon some officials in some Departments that they are very careful what they put into the Estimates
another time. I do not put it higher than that. Then there is the difficulty, at the other end of the scale, for this House really to maintain a comprehensive grasp of the whole financial picture from day to day and to form at all a correct appreciation of what is the effect on the whole financial situation of particular proposals pressed from one quarter or another every day of the week, and it is for that reason that I have always thought and said that the picture which my right hon. Friend drew of the normal year—it may be an actual forecast or it may not—and the same picture that he gave last week when he showed the House how far it had wandered from the high water level, is the kind of picture I want to see given as regularly as possible in order to enable the House to form a correct judgment of what it is asked to do. Unless this House can be an effective ally of my right hon. Friend he is very much in this position, that once his fire trenches, in the shape of the Treasury, are occupied, it is practically impossible for the troops in the support trenches—this House—to come into action at all. The importance of that is rendered greater by this, that my right hon. Friend has latterly taken to the course, which I rather deplore, of leaving the responsibility in matters of finance unduly to this House. It is not satisfactory for him to shrug his shoulders and say, "That is where your finance is. If you choose to do more, that is your lookout." I do not think that is a position which really can lead to economy or to this House assisting my right hon. Friend, but if that be so it is all the more incumbent upon him to suggest means and methods by which this House may help him by becoming properly informed as to the business with which they have to deal.
I had meant to say a word or two about the suggestion which has been frequently made about an Estimates Committee. I have never been able to accept the view that no Committee of that kind could do useful work without being allowed to deal with policy. It depends what you mean by dealing with policy. I do not want any Estimates Committee to deal with policy in the sense of directing policy, but it might be valuable to have an Estimates Committee which would be able to report on particular classes of Estimates and say, "We find that for the service
that you demand to carry out a certain policy this is efficient and economic administration. We also point out that if you choose to dispense with such and such an item of policy you could save so much money," merely giving the House of Commons the information, on which they would then take the responsibility, if they chose to do it, of asking the Government to vary their policy. The excuse for this Amendment is to invite as full an expression of his views from my right hon. Friend as he feels disposed to give. I would ask him in particular to devote his attention to these points. The first is what exactly he has in mind when he refers us to the policy of strengthening the Treasury; what exactly, in fact, Cabinet control amounts to, whether the Finance Committee of the Cabinet is still in function and is intended to be a permanent institution, and to give the names of its members, and, lastly, what suggestions he has to make as to the best way in which he can invite the co-operation of this House to assist him in the solution of one of the most urgent problems with which we are confronted.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I beg to second the Amendment.
I desire to associate myself very fully with what has fallen from my hon. Friend, that it is in no sense hostile to the Government or that it means that we consider they have done badly, up to the present, in their effort to reduce national expenditure or that the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserves less than our full support in his fight to stabilise our finances. Such a protestation is hardly necessary for me, because a short time since, on a Motion which associated the Government with the rise in prices and the fall of our credit, I spoke and voted for them. The Amendment deals with the future, and is entirely born of the wish to help the Government in its difficult task. It was, in fact, on the Paper before we saw the notice which the Government put down for the appointment of a Select Committee. I congratulate them on their intelligent anticipation of what the House was thinking of, but the difficulty I am in in considering this Amendment and the proposal for a Select Committee is that I do not see in what way that Committee can possibly produce any Report which will be of use to us in connection with the finances of the coming
year. The very first thing that is to be referred to the Committee is the question of seeing how far current expenditure can be reduced. That is the very first thing that is suggested in the reference to the Committee, "What, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided upon by the Government may be effected out of current expenditure?" I therefore hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the Amendment as one which is useful to him, because it will give him an opportunity of explaining how he proposes to deal with the question of control, whether by the Government, the Treasury or another Department, or by this House, in a way that we should probably have to wait months for if we waited for the Report of the Select Committee.
The Amendment and the proposal of the Select Committee, which I assume comes from the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, deal with two forms of control, first of all a system of control in the Departments and a system of control by the Treasury, while the Amendment asks that the House should be satisfied
that no improvement can be made in the machinery for the control and limitation of expenditure, as well by the supervision of the Treasury as by the informed and effective exercise of the authority of this House.
I think the system of control in the Department itself is of the greatest importance. It is the very best means of control of expenditure in detail of all existing means if you can get it exercised. It is, in fact, economy at the source. The evidence there is before us seems to show that the Departments have become somewhat demoralised during the War. Thousands of amateurs have come in and diluted the trained staffs, and the withdrawal of Treasury control, which the War has brought about, has led each Departmental staff to become very much in the nature of a law unto itself, and I doubt very much indeed if they are not at this moment giving the Treasury much trouble in the resumption of Treasury control, which had to be practically done away with during the War. I have a feeling that it is no longer the good house dog that it once was, and that its functions as a controller of all expenditure, first confused when it became a great spending Department in connection with the Budget of 1910, and afterwards debilitated by the processes of the War
during which it had no opportunity of exercising control, have practically ceased to function at all.
What the House would like to know, and certainly what I should like to know, is whether Treasury control is going to be set up or has been set up again, whether it is functioning as it did before the War on its one single-minded line of merely being a Department to control expenditure, and if those lines can be strengthened and improved? The proposals for the Committee to be set up include these things for inquiry. I do not know how long the right hon. Gentleman thinks the Committee will take before it can arrive at any conclusion and before it can give the House any help? It will probably be a good many months. I suppose the coming Budget—which is the most important thing before the country at the present time—is largely dependent upon it. The Government itself in some senses may be regarded as depending upon the result of the financial arrangements which it sets up for next year. We are all very conscious from the letters we receive daily or from the extracts from our local Press, which are showered upon us, that the nation is looking at the question of Government expenditure, and what they very often call, misguidedly, "Government extravagance," as the cause of high prices. I acquit the Government policy of operating in that direction, but when you have, as we had a few weeks ago, Estimates amounting to over £500,000,000, it must be recognised that they came as a great shock to the nation. Much as they were explained, and explained to my satisfaction, it does not go the entire length of satisfying those whom I represent. I hope, therefore, that, quite apart from the excellent motive of having a Select Committee to go into the whole question of the control that is to be exercised, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give us some information to-night as to whether the Treasury is really functioning again in all the Departments and how it is doing it?
A further point relates to the exercise of the authority of this House. Both the Amendment I am seconding and the proposal of the Government purport to deal with this point on almost identical lines. I am bound to admit as a new Member that I have felt myself perfectly fogged
when I have endeavoured to get a coherent idea of the methods by which the House is supposed to have any kind of control over financial difficulties at the present time. I learn something about the difference between Ways and Means and Supply, but as soon as I have learned one bit I have forgotten bits that I had learned before. I do not expect, as a new Member, to learn these things all in a moment, but what I do hope is that one of the first things that this very desirable Committee will do will be to prepare for the use of the House a clear statement of the different stages in the progress of finance through the House, and how it is possible for the House to take an intelligent share in those stages. I am somewhat sceptical as to how far this House of 700 Members, directly or through any Committee it may set up, can exercise any really serious influence in the direction of economy. We are all very susceptible to the winds that blow from our constituencies. I have read with great interest the various suggestions made by the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) on to-day's Order Paper, and I am glad that they will be a subject for examination by the Committee.
In conclusion, I wish to say something on a point dealt with very briefly by the Mover of the Amendment, and in doing so I am afraid I may be rushing in where he feared to tread. I refer to the question of Government or Cabinet responsibility for economy. I cannot help thinking that we shall get economy when and only when we have a Government and a Cabinet into whose very bones the need for retrenchment has entered, which feels that it is carrying out a national mandate, and to that end overriding all sectional demands to spend money on this or that excellent thing. We shall only get economy when we have a vigorously economical Chancellor of the Exchequer—which I am certain we have at this moment—backed by an economical Prime Minister—which I hope and believe we have got—and a Cabinet thoroughly seised of the fact that every Member of it is expected by the nation to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer in keeping every Department within proper financial bounds, and not working on the theory that if you will scratch my financial back I will scratch yours. Whether we have such a Cabinet at this moment, and
whether it sits to examine the general financial situation at the proper time, that is, before the Budget, as in the days of Gladstone, I do not know, but I am sure that whether the House appoints the Committee suggested or any other Committee or none, however long this Committee sits, however many volumes of evidence it publishes, however many reports it sends up to this House, nothing will bring about economy but a return to the old methods of Treasury and Cabinet examination of the financial situation whenever it is about to recommend a policy to this House.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am sure that the small attendance of Members to hear this very important discussion does not really reflect the interest of the House of Commons in the subject. Subconsciously, perhaps, this House is trying to find its way back to the real origin of its powers in the control of expenditure. It may be of some interest to hon. Members who are not old Members to know that the original Resolution upon which the authority of this House is based was passed in 1707 and again in 1715, and shows the authority of the House over the expenditure of the Executive in these words:
This House will not proceed upon any petition, Motion, or Bill for granting any money or for releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown but in Committee of the whole House.
Upon that and two other Resolutions passed within 14 or 15 years of each other in the years 1700–1725, this House operated for many years. The old practice used to be, as perhaps some hon. Members may recollect, that supply was put down for every day, and every day if the Commons wished to proceed with other business it had to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair. As matters developed our legislation became more and more contentious and embraced a much wider field, and that naturally lent itself to obstruction, and it was not until the year 1802 that the House finally consented to the rules of Supply under which it at present operates. In the old days the House had what my hon. Friend who introduced this Motion regretted we do not have at the present time, and that was a very meticulous examination of the Estimates, and it was upon that meticulous examination of the Estimates that' obstruction Was based. If a powerful and vigilant Opposition
succeeded sufficiently to defer consideration of measures referred to in the King's Speech, then at a certain period of the Session there began a slaughter of the innocents, and the rest of the time of the Session was devoted to the granting of the very necessary supplies.
What a change since those days! How complex the whole of our national life has become! That, of course, is at once reflected in the procedure of the House of Commons. We now have no break-up in August to meet again in February. I do not know whether we shall for many years to come see the time when there will be no Autumn Session. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sir R. Sanders) has some hope that we shall have relief in August this year. I hope that will be the case. Let us all hope so. These circumstances show quite clearly that what used to satisfy the House of Commons previous to 1902 and from 1902 onwards in the control of expenditure wholly fail to meet the necessities of the case to-day. Not only are the Estimates swollen but they are immensely increased in number, variety and character, and what my hon. Friend has said is true that this House cannot seriously or effectively apply itself to an examination in detail of the Estimates. All we can do is to raise questions of policy and occasionally to fall upon some particularly glaring case, as we think, of extravagance in the Estimates; but the exigencies of time are such that the executive, whatever Government is in power, must have opportunities for carrying through its legislative programme, and that inevitably leaves the House, either in Committee or on the Report stage, a wholly insufficient opportunity of performing a real financial function as the effective guardian of the public purse.
8.0 P.M.
Many suggestions have been made. There is on the Order Paper a proposal in the name of one of the Members of the Government that a Select Committee be appointed. Among other things, it is suggested that this Select Committee should make recommendations so as to secure more effective control by Parliament over public expenditure. All I have got to say in regard to that is this. It is by no means comparable to the work which has already been discharged by the most efficient and individually powerful Select
Committee which called before it, and had submitted to it, the opinions of high officers of this House and all the high officers of Departments, and Members of this House whose financial experience and parliamentary status no one would for one moment endeavour to depreciate. And we have from them a Report which still holds the field.
It is quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has twice declined to carry that into effect, but I wish to let him know that we are not going to cease our efforts to obtain such an estimates committee, at any rate substantially in accordance with that report, no matter how often we may be rebuffed by the right hon. Gentleman or the Executive, because we believe that it is only through bringing into co-partnership with the Executive of the day a Select Committee which is representative of the general body of the House irrespective of party that that very desirable object can be achieved. And we are determined to continue our offensive until we reach our objective in some form or other. What can be done this Session? I fear very little. Only by continual discussions on any and every occasion on which we can reasonably raise it we will support any Member or body of Members in this House in urging the grave importance of this very serious question. If this Select Committee is set up, as I hope it will be, that is all we are going to get, and I strongly advise my hon. Friends who may be objecting to it to let the Motion go, because it is something anyhow; it maintains a useful precedent which was set last Session and the Session before. By all means let us use what we can get if we cannot get all we want.
But I want to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend mainly to this, that the most effective checks which are in practice applied are for seeing, after the money has been granted, that it has been honestly spent. Our real desire is to see that only what money is absolutely required for the service of the State shall be granted. We have very little doubt indeed that money once granted is honestly spent, and the Public Accounts Committee is a very efficient and, within its limits, a very effective body. It is before the money is granted that criticism should come into full play. I would respectfully recommend hon. Members who
are really interested in this matter, in those rare moments of leisure which they can spare from the House of Commons or other attractive rooms within the ambit of the Houses of Parliament, to read Chapter 18 of Erskine May on the Crown and Parliament and charges on the people. You get there the foundation of the whole principle upon which Parliament has hitherto moved. I would urge upon my right hon. Friend—I will not say that the whole of this machinery, but that the whole spirit in which these matters are looked at from the point of view of the Executive, must be changed. Bring the House of Commons into co-partnership with them in economy.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants it, and no one needs it so much as he does. I am certain that if you do, very great things will be achieved. My right hon. Friend said the other day, "Point out to us somewhere where I can save £5,000,000." We know what happens here on the Floor of the House. It is quite impossible for us to make a proper examination of all the details. That can only be done, I think, by the recommendations of a Committee of this House. We can check that matter, I hope, with that knowledge which comes from the detailed work having already been given by witnesses who will appear before us and can tell us what the facts actually are, and not merely what an Estimate says, but what really lies behind the words and figures that are there used. My right hon. Friend, or whoever dealt with the matter, spoke of Treasury control. Unfortunately I was supporting the Government who brought about a change. Soon after 1906 the Treasury became, for the first time in its existence, a spending Department. There were brought within its ambit the old age pensions expenditure and the whole organisation with regard to that. That changed the spirit of the Treasury official. You cannot at the one time be based on all the traditions of economy and of the watch-dog of finance, and at the same time be responding to appeals from the House of Commons and the taxpayer for spending more money in connection with a Department which is peculiarly responsible, in every sense of the word, to the appeals of sentiment and the pressure of Members of this House. It is a most unfortunate thing, and I am glad indeed to know that, so far as that is concerned, that Department is
no longer under the control of the Treasury. It affects the moral, so to speak, of the traditional attitude of the Treasury to public expenditure. The Treasury ought to have nothing whatever to do with the spending of money. I hope that we may have a change in that respect before long.
There is a real change in the House of Commons with regard to what we used to practise as "obstruction." I think that change is likely to continue. I believe that giving to the House of Commons more power in these matters will not be abused. Do not think that in the future the people of the country will stand what used to happen a good many years ago. On genuine differences let us disagree, but I hope we shall never go back again to the pettifogging, pin-pricking ideas which were supposed to be the only way of carrying on His Majesty's Opposition. The idea that the only object of the Opposition is to oppose is thoroughly unsound. When a measure is a good one and you can support it, do so. If you honestly differ about it, fight against it with all your might. That is the spirit in which we should carry on our work. I mention that only to urge upon the Executive that they can really trust an Estimates Committee representative of the House as a whole. I am certain that this House, in its uneasiness whenever this subject is mentioned, reflects the attitude of the public mind on the lack of control of Government expenditure. This Amendment is not likely to be pressed to a Division, for it has been moved only for the purpose of raising a definite discussion. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that any measure he may take which will help him further to control the spending Departments will have the heartiest sympathy of those for whom I can speak and of the whole House in general.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Let me say at once that I recognise the very friendly spirit in which my right hon. Friend opposite and the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have spoken, and their real desire to assist the Government. We are, indeed, discussing a problem of equal interest to us all, and we are at one in the desire to help in its solution. Let me refer to my right hon. Friend's specific proposal. It is not that I refuse to entertain the object he set before me, but that
I cannot bring myself to believe, with the advice I have received, that such a Committee really can be fitted effectively into our Parliamentary machine, or that it will aid us effectively in the manner suggested. The right hon. Gentleman says that what we require is an opportunity for the Committee to examine Estimates before the House is asked to vote upon them. How is he going to combine that desirable object with the control which the House has held in the past, and, as far as I know, desires to hold in the future, over expenditure. Money must be voted for the service of the year by a certain time. If you send your Army Estimates upstairs and the Committee's examination is not completed in time you will have to proceed by a series of Votes on Account or Votes of Credit for the Army. The same would be the case with the Navy. Then there are the Supplementary Estimates, always liable to the most searching criticism, which have to be got through. We try to have a Consolidated Fund Bill passed before the close of the financial year. I do not think it is possible for such a Committee as my right hon. Friend has suggested to examine with real care and detailed attention all the Estimates in the course of the Session. I am certain it is not possible to examine those Estimates effectively and to report upon them in time to enable them to be brought down here for discussion so early that the House can maintain its full rights of control and debate upon them.
My right hon. Friend alluded to what happened in days long gone by. When I first entered the House, which was a later period than that to which he was alluding, there used to be a good deal of detailed discussion, generally of a very petty and often of a nagging and obstructive character, mainly in the dog days. The Estimates were put off to the end of the Session when the House was thoroughly weary, and the Government, with such influence as it had, kept together a majority, and that majority beat down at length the persistent inquiries of certain inquisitive Members as to the number and salaries, say, of the ratcatchers at the Royal Palaces, the expenditure on the Royal Yacht, and things of that kind, which took up an infinite amount of time. I do not think that kind of control is useful or effective or to the credit of Parliament, or that we should
attempt to re-establish it. What is proposed by the Government is that the Committee on National Expenditure should be set up again, that they should, as in former years, take, not all the Estimates presented, but whichever group or class they like, and examine them to see whether they can find signs of extravagance or possibilities of economy. I do not conceive myself, though I am not a competent person to interpret these matters, that there is anything in the terms of reference to that Committee which would prevent it from formulating such a report as that which was sketched by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this motion, and in which they would say, "in such a Department there is no extravagance, given the policy on which His Majesty's Government is proceeding, but if you forego this or that service, then you could save this or that sum of money." It might be that a report presented in that way would sometimes induce the House to forego a service which they would otherwise approve of. My difficulty is that I do not believe that large sums are to be saved by petty savings. I think that large sums are involved in questions of policy, and that you have to change your policy, whether it be foreign or domestic, if you want to make large reductions. Let me say at once, I am not offering any excuses for the waste of a £5 note—not at all; but I believe that the control which affects a hundred pounds here or a thousand pounds there is on the whole well exercised at present.
Is a committee of the kind suggested without any special knowledge of the particular class of Estimate to go through them and say whether the salaries are extravagant, or the members of the staff are greater than the need, or whether in this or that little detail, or through this or that hole some money goes, or is it suggested that they should have an officer similar to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for the purpose either of seeking out possible scandals or difficulties or extravagances and drawing attention to them. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is not alone. He has a great staff. If he were a single officer trying to advise he could not in the least do what he does. He has under him a considerable trained staff working month in and month out in the Department. If you were to create any office for a com-
mittee of the kind it must at least be a comparable to that of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and his staff, which costs the country £150,000 per year. I have said that I believe the control is small matters is well maintained now by the Treasury. An hon. Gentleman asked whether Treasury control had been revived. It has been revived, and I think it is as efficient as it has ever been. I do not say that expenditure can be treated by the Treasury now as it was in the days of Mr. Gladstone, and particularly in the years when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The idea intimately associated with Mr. Gladstone's form of financial control that the interference of the State was to be reduced to a minimum and its activities to a minimum, is now cherished in no quarter and among no party or section of a party so far as I know in the country. You cannot, when you have things like national health insurance, old age pensions, and a national unemployment scheme, and a national housing scheme, exercise or offer the same blunt and uncompromising refusal to proposals for new expenditure as you could in the days when it was accepted by all parties in the State that such matters as those were altogether outside the proper sphere of Government activities.
Where is the question of policy which is not settled by the Treasury, but which is a matter under Cabinet control. An hon. Gentleman asked what is the procedure, and I tried to illustrate it by taking the Army or Navy Estimates. The effective cost of the Army depends on the number of men you are going to keep, and of the Navy depends upon the Fleet you are going to keep or build. Those are great questions of policy, and are of world-wide importance, and have to be decided in the light of world-wide considerations, as the British Empire itself. They naturally come to the Cabinet. The general main features are laid down, whether it be in the form of a building programme for the Navy with the men required and all the accessories necessary to maintain a fleet of that size, or whether it be in relation to the number of troops to be raised in regard to the Army. In that way large questions of policy are settled by the Cabinet and Treasury control is exercised over the details. The fact that the Cabinet agrees to a block estimate of so many millions, does not mean that the Cabinet professes
to control every item of ten thousand pounds running through those items. That is not the work of the Cabinet and ought not to be undertaken by it. That is done on examination by the Treasury. Sometimes we are convinced that the objections which we have raised are not well founded, and sometimes in the Department with which we are dealing, whatever it may be, there remains a difference of opinion which the Ministers immediately concerned are unable to settle by agreement. They go again to their colleagues in the Cabinet and take a decision of the joint, collective wisdom of that body, in which both concur. It is on those great principles that the rate of our expenditure mainly depends. When the other day I invited the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) to show me a saving of £5,000,000, I meant that he should show me where the policy could be altered so that that saving could be made. We were discussing Civil Service, Estimates, and I meant what was the service which my right hon. Friend thought could be foregone or that was so extravagantly managed now that that saving could be made. My right hon. Friend said it was idle to ask such a question. I think it is, and I do not believe you will find a service of which that can be said.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It was not possible, of course, to indicate the particular direction in which a saving could be effected then, because we had not got the Estimates before us. We were simply dealing then with the Vote on Account, which gives no details, but to show how that is so, the Department which leaps to my mind at once is the Ministry of Munitions. I only speak, I will not say from hearsay, but from what I read in the newspapers, having no other information at all, and I cannot have it until I have the Estimates before me.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend will get the Estimates, and he will then exercise his ingenuity upon finding methods of economy. I do not think that he will find that the Ministry of Munitions is badly managed or that the reductions in staff that they have made have not been comparable with the reduction of the work since the Armistice was signed. That further reductions will be made is, of course, true. They are going on, I think, all the time, but you must remember that
the Ministry of Munitions is carrying on the most gigantic business, often of a very complicated and technical character; that it is responsible, until it has disposed of them, for the custody of immense quantities of stores, and that it was responsible for the administering and winding up of running agreements made during the War which, in many cases, were only reaching their maximum speed when they were called upon to stop; and to grudge a proper staff to a Department doing that work is to save a few thousand pounds at a probable loss of millions to the State. I said that the Treasury control had been re-established and that I thought it was working efficiently. There are two great branches into which Treasury control may be divided in this matter—what I may call the examination of the administrative services and the control of the establishment. They are both important.
We now, as I told the House on an earlier occasion, have appointed, under the Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, three Controllers—the Controller of Finance, who is my principal adviser on what I may call Budget matters and about currency and matters of that kind; the Controller of Administrative Services, who, for instance, is my immediately responsible adviser in regard to all Army Estimates and Navy Estimates, and administrative services generally; and the Controller of the Establishment, whose business it is—that is an entirely new branch—to co-ordinate the Civil Services and to work the Whitley Councils in the Civil Service, which I think, with the assistance of the representatives of the Staff side, and particularly of the Vice-Chairman of the National Council, Mr. Stuart Bunning, he has been doing very successfully, and I hope with the prospect of improving the relations, or, I would rather say, of increasing the satisfaction with which Government servants serve the State. But that establishment branch is constantly watching the establishment of these different Government Departments. It is making suggestions to them for improvement, controlling and criticising any extensions, and, of course, coming to me on large questions of policy or on questions on which particular difficulty arises. I was asked what I meant by revising Treasury control. I think the first thing I meant was to make the machine of Treasury control efficient, and that, I think, we
have done. I think we have got the right machine. We are building up the right staff, and I think we shall see the fruits of our work more and more as time goes on, but I am anxious—I think I have said so before—that this House should give no colour to the doctrine that economy or thrift is the sole business of the Treasury. It is the business of every Department, and no Department is entitled to say, "It is for the Treasury to control our expenditure," and to allow themselves any laxity or latitude on that account.
We had, by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, at the request of myself or the Government—I am not quite certain which of us acted in that case or from whom the direction came—summoned a meeting of financial officers of all the Departments and consulted with them as to the control which was exercised and as to any improvements which could be made. They reported, and certain decisions were taken, which I will summarise to the House. As regards the Service Department, they said that one of the most important functions of Government Civil Service is to secure economy in administration, and accordingly the Permanent Civilian Head of the Department must be made directly responsible to the Ministerial Head of the Department as to the control of expenditure, and should for this purpose be given the status of a full member of the Council or Board. Then, in dealing with the Civil Department, they said:
For economy in policy and in management the permanent head of the Department must be ultimately responsible, under the Minister, and the inclusion on his staff of a finance officer who is his subordinate does not relieve him of his responsibility. In all matters of staff organisation and office management, the officer to be held responsible for economy by the Permanent Head of a Department is the Principal Establishment Officer.
Then the Government decided that the consent of the Prime Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury, is required to the appointment or removal of permanent heads of Departments, their deputies, their principal finance officers and principal establishment officers. The House will see the importance attached by the responsibility of the finance officer and Government to the responsibility of the Permanent Head, and to the special
the establishment officer in each Ministry or Department. They further direct that
Questions involving finance were to be referred at an early stage to the Finance Branch of the Department, and correspondence with the Treasury on proposals involving expenditure was to be drafted or concurred in by the Finance Branch.
There is a certain expenditure with regard to the establishment officer in view of the special responsibility attaching to him in his particular work which I have already described to the House. Lastly, they directed that
Any case in which an accounting officer has, by the written direction of the head of the Department, made a payment to which he sees objection, must be notified by him to the Treasury, and the papers communicated to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
I think we have shown, by establishing that organisation and those rules, that we have, at any rate, laid a solid foundation for effective control both of expenditure and of saving within the Departments themselves, and an effective basis on which Treasury control can be exercised outside. As my right hon. Friend knows, I agree with him that the Treasury ought not to be a spending Department, that to make it a spending Department is to put it in a wholly false position when it exercises its other functions of control. It is not possible for my right hon. Friend to support me from that Bench when I not unfrequently enunciate the doctrine to which he has given such complete acquiescence and approval to-night. The Treasury, or, at least, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for Customs and Excise, and I remain responsible for the administration of pensions, but my right hon. Friend may remember that when there was a new Pensions Bill, I did not introduce it in the House or conduct it through its stages. I thought it very undesirable that I should take upon myself the promotion and pilotage of a Bill which involved a large additional expenditure, and I was very glad when one of my colleagues, the Minister of Pensions, undertook to be responsible for the conduct of the Bill through the House. So far as the actual administration is concerned, I, like my right hon. Friend, wanted to get rid of it, and the Board of Customs and their officers would be very glad if they could get rid of it, too; but, after examining the matter, I could not see any other agency sufficiently widely distributed all over the country to do the
work, and to remove it from the Excise Officer, who is the Pension Officer, would be to duplicate to a great extent, and to create a new machine, when the House is anxious rather that some of the old machinery should be scrapped.
I have been asked by my right hon. Friend how the House could co-operate in economy. It is a delicate question. The first way in which this House could co-operate is, of course, by the exercise of self-restraint, by refraining from pressing new expenditure. That is the first advice I have to tender. I know it is disagreeable for the House, and my hon. Friend opposite observed the other day that if I disapproved of expenditure I ought not to come whining to the House, but should resign.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am quite sure I never said anything so offensive as that of the right hon. Gentleman; but I did say that, if the right hon. Gentleman did not agree to a Vote of this House with regard to expenditure, he had the remedy in his own hands so far as he himself was concerned.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I grant that, and if the House forced upon me a policy which I thought destructive, they would, of course, expect to see another Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I never thought that the Cabinet Minister, of whom I have read, of whose resignations the Prime Minister's drawers were full, was the most useful or helpful friend to his colleagues. At the same time, I do not think a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was always threatening resignation, on minor points in the House of Commons would be very helpful or very congenial to the House of Commons. I did not resign on the adverse Vote of 25th February. I did not think it was the occasion to do so. At the same time, I do not say that the first form in which the House can give assistance is by the exercise of self-restraint and by refraining from pressing new expenditure. Then I suggest to my right hon. Friend that every now and then the Opposition, who choose what Vote is put down for discussion, should choose a Vote where they feel that economies could be made, or where primâ facie there is room for economy, and should give a full Supply day to examine a Minister as to those possible economies. That is hardly ever done
When you come to the Civil Service Votes the day is spent in invitations to the Minister to enlarge his activities, to be more generous than he has hitherto been, to show a little strength, and not to be browbeaten by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to get the money which everyone present agrees would be so well spent. With the Army or Navy the matter is simpler, if it is a question of large saving, to say in what portion of the British Empire the garrison is excessive for the work that has to be done and could be reduced or withdrawn; and in the case of the Navy to say by what number of ships the Navy which the Government proposes exceeds the requirements of the country.
I have failed to observe that there was any very fierce criticism on the Army Estimates and on the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War as he unfolded to the House the scheme which had received the approval of the Government. I do not think there was any serious question about the strength of the Navy when that was being dealt with. Doubts were expressed in some quarters as to whether enough money was being spent for the purpose, and there was no serious suggestion that these were bloated and excessive expenditures. I think that examination will show that the Civil Service Estimates have been framed with the same care, and are capable of the same test. I would ask the House, however, to be reasonable in any examination which they undertake. If they require witnesses, I would ask them to remember that they cannot expect the Minister to go into every detail of administration in his Department. He is not there to deal with detail. He is there to exercise a general supervision and to decide the larger questions. You may call the subordinates of the Minister before you. In doing so you take them away from their own special work to give answers to questions which you are pleased to put to them. You probably take up a great deal of their time, far in excess of the time they have to spend under examination, and you impose a great deal of labour and increased work on the Department itself. Some part, I know, is necessary, but I would appeal for some discretion as to how far this calling of witnesses should be employed; otherwise you will have the men who
ought to be watching expenditure and preventing waste thinking about the answers they have to give to questions by Committees of the House, considering how they are to make the best of the case, and how best to meet allegations brought against them. I do not think you can expect their examination to produce any profound change in the amount of the Estimates which are put forward. But hon. Members serving on such Committees will, I think, appreciate the care with which these Estimates are framed and the reason for each particular item. I am inclined to extend an invitation to the right hon. Gentleman in front of me, and other hon. Members near him, to come to the Treasury and see the way the work is done, to see the work that comes in and the way it is attended to. If the right hon. Gentleman comes along he can see the Treasury dealing with the expenditure of any Department he likes to name. He will then see the amount of control exercised, what steps are taken to get information, the way matters are criticised, how in any particular case a decision is given. He may see whether the final decision has been in the hands of one of the permanent officials, or whether the matter has been brought to the Financial Secretary, or to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot help thinking, after listening to the speeches of hon. Members, that if they saw the work in progress they would be both astonished and pleased to see how much knowledge and zeal is applied to the consideration of these matters and how much care is given to them. They would then have, I believe, a more comfortable feeling about financial control. As regards the Committee of the Cabinet, on which I was asked a question, I may say that Committee continues in existence. Its composition has not been altered since I last spoke. It meets from time to time at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister, and when matters of sufficient consequence are ready for decision. I have answered various questions as to this Cabinet Committee, and I do not propose to answer on that subject again.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Like my hon. Friends who have Moved and Seconded the Amendment, I certainly do not rise in any hostile spirit so far as the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury
are concerned. I really believe, however, that the persistence of hon. Members of this House is beginning at last to have an effect upon the Government, and I believe they are taking some interest in the subject itself. I feel that this Debate will, at any rate, have this use: that it has given the Chancellor of Exchequer an opportunity of making a statement and giving a review of the whole situation so far as possible in his speech. I believe that the country is more interested in this question of expenditure and economy than in any other question at the moment. I think—quite wrongly—that the country believes that the rise in prices is due to the extravagance of the Government. It is only a cause, and it is not the chief cause. But I go so far as to say this, that if the Government is extravagant it must have an effect outside. It must lead people outside to be extravagant, and if everybody is extravagant there is no doubt it has its reflection in prices. I believe still, in spite of what the Chairman has said, that this House has no real control over the Estimates. I still believe that the Treasury has no real control over departmental expenditure. The reason, I believe, that this House has no real control over the Estimates is that they are produced from week to week, and from month to month, in a form which very few hon. Members can really understand. A great many of the items are treated in a very meagre fashion. A great many are treated in a very involved fashion. I guarantee there are very few here, with the exception, perhaps, of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) and one or two others who take a special interest in the matter, who really understand the Estimates placed before us. I believe that the Treasury has no real control over departmental expenditure. I listened very carefully to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was describing Treasury control over the various Departments, but I do not believe you will ever get proper control until you have a Treasury official inside each of the great Departments under the authority of the Treasury and responsible to them. At the present time all you have got is an accounting' officer who looks into the finance of the Department, but he can be dismissed at any moment by the head of the Department. The accounting officer
can give advice to the head, but he can be dismissed by the head of the Department.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Apparently the hon. Member did not catch one of the decisions which I summarised to the House a short time ago. It was to the effect that the finance officer could only be appointed or removed with the concurrence of the Prime Minister.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That does not alter what I was saying.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member said that the finance officer could be dismissed at the sole will of the head of his Department.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Then I understand he can only be dismissed with the concurrence of the Prime Minister, but this officer is not responsible to the Treasury or to the head of the Treasury, and he really belongs to the staff of the Department and is under the head of his Department.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is essential.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In that way you will never get proper economy within the Department itself. I want to refer to what has been happening during the last two or three years, and it makes me despair of any good coming out of the Committee which is going to be set up. During the last years we have had fifteen Reports from Select Committees composed of twenty-six Members of this House chosen presumably by the Whips and the Government on account of their knowledge of finance, their interest in this subject, and the amount of time they have been Members of this House. We have had no less than fifteen Reports on this very question we are discussing during the last two years. These committees examined dozens of witnesses, and they sat for many weeks and months. They took up a great deal of their own time in discussing this question, and they made recommendations, May I remind hon. Members of some of the recommendations made by these committees? In the first place they recommended that the Board of Trade, for instance, should have an officer acting with the assistant secretary to examine and criticise, on financial grounds, proposals made for public expenditure. It was suggested that in the Board of Trade there should be some-
body who could criticise policy as well as expenditure, but that recommendation has not been carried out.
They also proposed that there should be two Standing Committees on Estimates, and that when these two Committees bad reported to the House in favour of certain reductions in the Estimates, the House should be allowed to vote freely, and the Government Whips should be taken off. They also proposed that the whole form of Estimates should be remodelled, and in one of these Reports they gave the particular form of Estimates which, in their opinion, it would be much easier for the House to understand, would give hon. Members far more information, and enable them to come to some definite opinion one way or the other. In 1918, in evidence before one of these Committees, the accounting officer of the Ministry of Munitions said:
I do not think the Estimates as furnished in past Parliaments are worth the paper they are written on from the point of view of Parliamentary control.
They also recommend that statements about Money Resolutions sent to one of the Committees for report should be considered, that the Committee should report to the House, and that the same opportunity should be given to the House to vote freely without the Whips being put on. They also recommended that the Treasury should cease to be a spending Department, because they believed that a Department established to look after economy ought not to be a spending Department. They recommended that the accounting officer should not only be appointed and dismissed by the Treasury, but also that be should be a Treasury official solely responsible to the Treasury. Lastly, they recommended that no realisations of assets by capital expenditure ought to be applied to the current working expenses of the year. Have these recommendations been carried out? Not one single one has been carried out.
They produced no less than fifteen Reports. They sat for two years, and not one single one of their recommendations has been carried out by the Government. I say it is a perfect waste of time to appoint these Committees, and that they should sit week after week and month after month without any of their recommendations being adopted. It is not fair to the House, and it is certainly not fair to the members of the Committee, that they
should be wasting their time when none of their recommendations are carried out. They are not allowed to look into questions of policy, which, to my mind, is a very great mistake. You cannot divide administration and policy. Take unemployment insurance or the Ministry of Labour. The other day an enormous Vote was produced for the building of Employment Exchanges when it is perfectly clear that the whole of the administration of Unemployment Insurance can be done by existing machinery under the National Health Insurance Act.
What has happened upstairs? We have had a Committee on Unemployment Insurance. We voted the money for the Employment Exchange buildings, but upstairs we passed an Amendment saying that a great deal of this administration is to be handed over to the National Health Insurance Department. We first vote an enormous sum for Employment Exchange buildings, and then we pass a Bill saying a large part of it will not be required, because the machinery to be used is totally different and is already provided for. It seems to me, if these Committees could have looked into the question of policy as well as bare expenditure, they would have long ago come to the conclusion that a great deal of this Unemployment Insurance administration could be done by the National Health Insurance machinery, and that would have saved that money. To do any good, you must allow whatever Committee you set up to look into questions of policy so far as they affect administration. It is also clear to me that recommendations in this form do no good whatsoever. You are setting up a new Committee. I have not the honour of being invited to join that Committee, but, if I had the honour of being invited to be a member of it, before consenting, I should do my best to exact a pledge, without which I would not join, that the recommendations would have an opportunity of being properly discussed by hon. Members in this House. If a Committee be set up, and if it makes recommendations, those recommendations ought to be embodied in a Bill and full opportunity for discussion on the floor of the House ought to be given.
There is one more point that I should like to make. As everybody knows, it is the custom, on allotted days of Supply,
for the Debate to be opened with a sort of glorification by the Minister of his own Department. He speaks for about an hour, describing how everything has gone very well, and then various hon. Members get up and make various suggestions, nearly all of which mean an increase of expenditure. It would be infinitely better if, on allotted days of Supply, you could start with a proposal to reduce the Vote. These Committees would have reported to the House what expenditure they thought could be saved, and they would have suggested what reductions should take place here and there. I should very much like to see the Debate on allotted days of Supply commence with a proposal for a reduction from a Committee that had been studying the question You could then start with a Debate on the question whether you could save money. You could divide on the Motion for the reduction, and you could then go on with the more general questions contained in the Vote. I am very glad that to-night we did not hear the usual attack by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the Press and upon this House. I am very glad that, in connection with this question, he did not throw the whole onus on a Press agitation, or try to make out that the House leads him into extravagant expenditure. I believe that this question of expenditure is the most urgent one before the country to-day, and I hope that the Government will give us a real lead in the matter and that at no very distant date they will lay down the lines on which they are going to deal once and for all with the question of economy.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), who opened this portion of the Debate, mentioned that it was the question of the control of expenditure which was agitating the public mind. I should rather have said that it was the excessive expenditure and the excessive taxation which were agitating the public mind, and that the public have at least realised that excessive taxation is no remedy for excessive expenditure. The phrase "extravagance in Government expenditure" was also used, and I have been asking myself where this extravagance comes in. I identify myself with this Resolution in no hostile spirit, but rather, as the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) and my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Locker-Lampson) have said,
with a desire to elicit from the Government and from Members in different parts of the House their views upon the financial or expenditure position of the Government. I notice that in the Resolution the words run as follows:
No improvement can be made in the machinery for the control.
What is the machinery for the control of expenditure? I take it, as a man who has been in trade all his life and has had something to do with factory output costs, that the "machinery" is the accounting. I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport (Sir E Geddes) make use to-day of words which I think I will apply to the Debate in which we are now engaged. He spoke of "a lack of ton-mile statistics. "He deplored the absence of such statistical information in the Railway Accounts. I would like to see these, in figures which we are given, expressing what I would roughly call pound-man statistics." I hold in my hand the White Paper circulated with the Estimates for the Civil Service, which this year amount to a total of £557,000,000. I ask myself how I can find out whether there is departmental or administrative extravagance in this expenditure. Many of these items are dealt with in such a manner that we cannot possibly understand them or control them. We are asking by the Resolution for machinery by which we can control expenditure, but I say that we are given something here which no man can understand. On page 7 you have the Revenue Department one, two and three; Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, and Post Office. We are asked to control expenditure, and we are given in this Paper three Departments (which eventually bring in money) totalling an expenditure of nearly £50,000,000, and that money is added on to the Spending Department. If this House were a firm, these three items could never possibly appear in this Paper added to the non-production expenditure. I daresay that this is an old point raised long before I was born, or at any rate long before I had anything to do with politics. There it is given in the White Paper year after year, and the additional sum which it adds to the Estimates misleads the public if it does not confuse us here. I found on Page 5, "Ministry of Munitions,
£27,000,000," and a note at the bottom says:
The substantive Vote for these Services is occasioned by the decision to pay direct to the Exchequer in 1920–21 certain classes of receipts appropriated in aid in 1919–20.
How are we to know whether the money expended for the Ministry of Munitions is justified? It is quite possible that it is justified. The amount received by this great Department may justify us spending £27,000,000. On the other hand, we cannot test the point, if it does not justify the expenditure, it should allow us to know enough to say that it would have been better to have burned certain stores than to have spent any money at all We cannot dissect the figures, and we do not know what this Department ultimately brings in. We may be throwing good money after bad money for all we know. Again, we know that the expenditure on the Civil Service for the whole year amounts to £550,000,000, or £497,000,000, taking out the three Revenue Departments. If I went back into a factory and were selling goods which I had produced, I should know to a decimal point when those goods came to my London warehouse, how much they cost me to sell, and, comparing that cost with the cost five years ago, I should add a proportion for the increased cost of living since 1914, and, cœteris paribus, I should know what each item cost for distribution. We ought to have a pound-man type of statistics given us so that we may know what it costs, compared with five or six years ago, for Departmental administration of each £1 of expenditure voted to the Spending Departments. As a matter of fact, I do not myself think that you will find any wastage in the Departments. I share the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when you have been through the whole thing you will find that it is a mere bagatelle whether you have spent a little too much for typists, messengers, hotels, and everything else that is thrown in the teeth of the Government. I think it will not come, relatively, to much, but we have not had the opportunity yet of finding out whether there is anything or nothing in this outcry about extravagance in Government Departments. If we could in some way get these statistics inaugurated, we should know whether there was anything to justify the outcry and be able to lay the ghost and get on
to the next point, and find out where is the extravagance. Let us first settle whether there is Departmental waste or not, and how much, if any.
What is the most you can possibly save by cutting down departmental expenditure without impairing efficiency? I do not suppose for a moment it would be possible, even in one's wildest dreams, to save ten millions on the £557,000,000, and that would be nothing to justify anything which has been said. Ten millions is of course a large sum, but we are dealing with half a thousand millions. Therefore we have to come to the conclusion that if the administration of the spending Departments is not grossly extravagant the waste must be in something else, and we are thrown back on policy. The hon. Member for the Ripon Division, who proposed the Amendment talked about the Estimates Committee giving advice to the Government as to whether it could afford to undertake a policy or not. Perhaps he did not go quite so far as that, but at any rate be inferred that it would be able to advise as to whether the Government should embark on a branch of policy. I think no Committee will be able to give advice of that character, and for this reason. We do not yet actually know what is the capital or income of the country, and you can never deal with or discuss or consider the policy of the country without also considering the limit of ability to bear taxation and various other details. From time to time reference is made to Sir Robert Giffen's figures, and suggestions have been put forward that the total capital value of this country amounts to anything from £14,000,000,000 to £20,000,000,000. We do not know even what the income of the country is. We get certain Income Tax figures given us which include a man's own income, to which is added his clerk's income, if he pays Income Tax, and that is also added to his clerk's subordinate's income, if he pays Income Tax, and so know nothing about the real accurate income of the country. We do not know what the value of the capital of the country is, or what its income is, so when considering or advising upon any policy that should depend of necessity on the power of the country to bear the relative burden of taxation that indispensable knowledge is
not even yet at the disposal of any Estimates Committee.
Therefore I fear the point made by my hon. Friend will not be of very much use, because the required data, just as are the data for what I have called the "pound man statistics," in the cost of administering the outlay of the country, are wanting. We have not these details of what are the fundamental facts as regards national administration, and until they are forthcoming I do not think the Committee could advise the Government. My own impression is that when we have examined these figures in the terms of the Resolution, we shall find that very little money can be saved on administration, and we shall come to the conclusion that the taxable capacity of the country has been exceeded. That is the cause of the whole of this outcry with regard to extravagance. The country's conscience has been aroused through the excessive expenditure which is being met by excessive taxation, the position is causing disquietude, and making people turn round and grope blindly. They think it is Government extravagance; it is not. It is policy, and I, with my hon. Friend, feel it is very important, if we appoint this Committee, it should have something to say with regard to advice and control of policy, otherwise the country will never be able to make any use of its work. It should have one effect on the country; it will allay irritation; it will allay fear; it will divert attention from petty matters, such as savings in departmental administrations in comparison with the huge Civil Service outlay of over £500,000,000, which depend on national policy, to the main cause of trouble—policy. If we make the investigation I think we shall find there is little or nothing in the cry of extravagance on the part of Government Departments. At the most the extravagance can only amount to some £10,000,000, and therefore the country will have to realise that taxation, even for social reform, is not a benefit—I am not trying to be humorous—taxation is the greatest curse to the economic condition of a country. The proper place for money is in the hands of the working people and the industries of the country to enable them to turn it into profit and make it fructify. When money gets into the hands of the Treasury, into the cold hand of the State, it ceases to do that. People think
you can tax and tax without doing injury to the country and to everyone in it, rich and poor, and therefore you have constant electoral pressure put on the Government and on the Cabinet to grant more and more benefits to the people as a whole. In order to pay for these there is further taxation, and we, having passed the limit of our taxable capacity, are being crushed under the burden. I believe we shall discover, even from the Debate to-night, that the Committee will show there is nothing in the cry of extravagance on the part of Government Departments. Suppose you take one case—the case of the Transport Ministry, which is costing £181,000. What is that compared with £500,000,000? There is relatively nothing in the point of Government extravagance; the whole mischief of extravagance is in policy. Believing that policy is causing all the trouble in the country, I decline to accept any responsibility for further expenditure unless I have taken part, by my vote and voice, in initiating the demand for the outlay, and I shall in future place the blame for outlays on the Cabinet and on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers, who may fail to stand up against the Cabinet and explain that further expenditure is impossible because the taxable capacity of this country has already been reached, if not exceeded.

Mr. THOMAS DAVIES: When I was a new Member of this House, representing a poor agricultural district, I ventured to say I was absolutely at a loss, when asked by my constituents to explain why taxation was so high and prices so high, and there seemed no chance of things getting any better. I was, however, a little consoled by hearing the. Chancellor of the Exchequer state, in reply on the Debate that evening, that he would use every possible effort to cut down expenditure and that whatever savings could be effected should be effected. Now we have heard from the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson) that every recommendation made by Committees of this House within the last two years to lessen expenditure, to cut down Estimates and to go in for certain methods of checking the Treasury, has been neglected; Not one has been accepted, and that being so I really do think the House is not being treated with the consideration it deserves. When men have given of their best for a long period of two years, in
order to see how things can be improved, and have made certain recommendations, those recommendations ought to have more consideration than appeared to have been given them. I do not myself acquit the House altogether of blame for the bloated expenditure, because I have noticed—and I was a sinner among the rest—that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked us not to press for any further expenditure during the current year, because if we did he could not be responsible for keeping to his Estimates, the House insisted—and I was one of the chief sinners—that we should spend an additional £8,000,000 or £10,000,000 in increasing the amount of the Old Age Pensions. For that no one can blame the Government. The House itself must take the responsibility, and in that case, I think, the House did take the responsibility. I noticed the other evening, when we were speaking about Labour Exchanges, that the Leader of the House told us that, if we could not trust the Government, the Government had better resign. That is a threat which I think ought not to be offered to us. If you carry it to its logical conclusion, it simply means that the House must trust the Government both in great things and in small, and therefore the House need not take any control at all. I am not coming up from Gloucestershire every week to take part in such an unreal discussion as that.
It seems to me that, unless we put our foot down firmly, this kind of thing will go on. It has been said this evening, over and over again, that the Government have done all they could to keep expenditure down, but I venture to say that, if we had had as Chancellor of the Exchequer, during these last few years, a Mr. Gladstone, or a Sir William Harcourt, or my distinguished neighbour, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, they would have stuck hard and fast against these things, and put their foot down and not lifted it up; and they would have so influenced the House that expenditure would have been cut down long ago. I, in common, I daresay, with nearly every hon. Member of this House, am frequently receiving letters from people with small fixed incomes. One, especially, I have had during the last week from a highly-respected lady in my division, who said: "The breaking-point has come at last, and, I cannot go on paying the increased taxa-
tion and the increased local rates. I shall have to surrender my house, but, owing to the unfortunate fact that there are no other houses to spare, I suppose I must try and get into lodgings." Persons of that class deserve every sympathy that we in this House can give them. The only way, apparently, in which they can be helped, if the taxation cannot be taken from their shoulders, is by using every effort we can to cheapen everything they consume.
There are, in particular, two classes of people who are suffering very much to-day. There are those gentlemen and ladies who are landowners, and whose whole income is derived from land. They have been hit as hard as anyone in the kingdom to-day. They have not been allowed to put up their rents, and at the same time their taxation has increased by leaps and bounds. They have tried their best to keep their cottages and other buildings in good condition, and it costs them three times what it did before. That being so, I think they deserve every consideration at our hands. The other class is that to which I have just referred, who have small fixed incomes, and who were fairly comfortable on anything from £150 to £300 a year. To-day their incomes, as we know, are so shrunk that they do not amount to half of what they did before the War. I, myself, have been a member of a County Council for some twenty years, and am chairman of its biggest standing committee. I confess that, if I were to go to the County Council, and tell them that they were to swallow my Budget exactly as I brought it forward, they would very soon reject it. Year by year we put down the Estimates for the ensuing year, and, in a parallel column, we put down the expenditure for the year which has just expired, so that every member of our County Council, no matter whether he is a skilled accountant or not, can look down those parallel columns and see for himself, in regard to every item, whether it has gone up or whether it has gone down, or whether it stands as it did before. If it has gone up, he gets up in the County Council and wants to know the reason why. If it has gone down he is well satisfied, and if it is the same as it was before he has nothing more to say, but is also satisfied. I venture to say that, if our Estimates here, instead of being such a maze as
they are, were put down in that way, the attention of everyone in the House would be drawn to the fact that certain items had gone up, that certain others had gone down, and that others had been put in that never appeared before. From natural curiosity, if for no other reason, we should inquire why that was so, and we should be able to have a discussion on those things that matter, rather than upon little things that do not matter.
We have been asked over and over again if we can put our finger upon any expenditure that can be cut down. I at once say that we could very well cut down several millions in capital and current expenditure if we did away with Labour Exchanges. When we consider the perfection to which trade unions have come, in bringing within their limits practically everyone engaged in certain trades, from agriculture upwards, and when we recollect that there is a great federation of employers all over the country as well, I am certain we could very well do away with the luxury of Labour Exchanges. I understand that none of the trade unions care about them, while employers are always complaining that they have the wrong class of men sent to them for the particular job they have in hand; and the work they do in other directions could very well be done by friendly societies and trade unions, which have become accustomed now to work the National Insurance Act. I myself am secretary of a very large friendly society, with some 16,000 members. We are working the National Insurance Act, and a private side as well. We feel perfectly competent to carry out the work which it is proposed shall be done by the Labour Exchanges, and we feel that we can do it without any additional expense. I commend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the suggestion whether he cannot see his way to do away with these Exchanges. They may possibly be a little help now and again, but it is very little, and I think that by doing away with them we should do away with the scandal of going in for those expensive buildings that we were asked to vote for some fortnight ago, and against which, I am glad to say, the House did set its face. At the same time, we could save many hundreds of thousands of pounds per year in the carrying out of the work which can be done equally well without any expenditure of that kind. I hope the House, in future,
will insist upon its rights, and that, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), when it has made recommendations, it will insist that those recommendations shall be thoroughly discussed and, if need be, embodied in a Bill, and that the Government shall be put upon their defence as to why they do not accept the recommendation of competent Members of this House. If that is done, I venture to think the Government will not embark on any new expenditure without thinking once, twice and thrice what the cost will be.

Lieut.-Colonel A. POWNALL: While I associate myself with what has fallen from those who joined with me in tabling this Amendment, I wish to express, my regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not see his way to agree to an Estimates Committee. The Select Committee, in 1918, issued a questionnaire to a number of those best qualified to speak with regard to our financial methods. With hardly an exception—it is fair to say that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was an exception—those who answered stated that our present methods were inadequate. The great majority agreed, also in general terms, that an Estimates Committee would serve a useful purpose. If the present Chancellor of the Exchequer does not agree with an Estimates Committee, in view of the fact that all those best qualified to know, with himself as almost the only exception, a couple of years ago thought that such a Committee would serve a useful purpose, it does seem that it is for him to suggest some alternative, with a view to getting more financial control than can at present be exercised by the House of Commons. That is especially the case when our national expenditure is at its present rate. I would remind the House that the Estimates Committee was first set up in 1912, and it then dealt with the Civil Service. It reported in 1913 on the Navy Estimates, and in 1914 it was to have reported on the Army Estimates, but was prevented from doing so by the War. I understand that in the two years in which the Committee reported it did not do quite as much good as was expected in regard to curtailing expenditure. The reasons for that are probably twofold. The great majority of those serving on the Committee were new to that parti-
cular class of Commitee work, and I also understand they bad not got the advantage of a trained Treasury expert who could rather guide their deliberations and suggest to them on what points they could best focus. There is already an official, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is responsible, I understand, to the Public Accounts Commitee with regard to money which has been expended. It therefore would rather seem as if it was decided that we should have an Estimates Committee and that we should have some further Treasury officials sitting in the various Departments responsible, not to the departmental chief, but only to their immediate chief at the Treasury, and whose duty it would be, when Estimates were put forward, which they thought might, with advantage, be criticised, to bring such matters to the knowledge of the Estimates Committee. I quite agree that a duplicating control of that sort, having your control beforehand as well as your control afterwards, has obvious disadvantages in addition, of course, to the very heavy cost involved, but with our national Budget running into £800,000,000 or something of that sort I cannot help feeling that an expenditure of even £100,000 or something of that sort which might be tried for two or three years, making these officials report to an Estimates Committee, might be of distinct service, not only for what the Estimates Committee would find out, but also because—there is no getting away from it—the departmental chiefs, who feel that their actions are liable to be criticised in this way by a Parliamentary Committee, will be much more careful than they would otherwise be. Departmental chiefs, I imagine, have not got the same sense of financial responsibility that we have in the House of Commons in view of our responsibilities to our electors.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not agree to this Committee on Estimates, I was going to ask him to give us more facts than the House—I am speaking for the new Members—or the country as a whole know with regard to Treasury control as a whole. Very few of those who send us indignant postcards with regard to what they are pleased to call Government extravagance realise the measure of control which is already exercised by the Treasury, and it would be an excellent thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us an idea of how far this Treasury control goes, not only as regards
the Comptroller and Auditor-General, as regards seeing that money which is voted is properly spent, but also as regards the framing of Estimates and to what extent the Treasury, and afterwards the Government, are able to check Estimates framed by the various Government Departments to see that we are cutting our coat according to our cloth. I should also like to have had a reply from the Front Bench whether the Treasury will, in view of its greatly increased responsibilities, in view of the fact that we are now spending some five or six times the £200,000,000 which we used to spend before the War, is really able to cope with this greatly increased responsibility, and, if so, how that responsibility is being grappled with—whether it is by means of gentlemen who joined the Treasury during the War, who have made good there and been kept on permanently—but it seems to me quite impossible for the Treasury Staff of 1914 adequately to tackle the Estimates of 1920.
In view of the treatment accorded to the Select Committee of 1918, I only hope that the appointing of this fresh Committee on National Expenditure is not merely a sign of what we used to call in our soldiering days "eye-wash." When a higher authority was coming round to inspect you, you naturally put rather a special gloss upon all your proceedings. It may be that the Front Bench, feeling that there is a great weight of criticism in regard to national expenditure at present, think it necessary to appoint a Select Committee on the question of expenditure, but they have at the back of their minds the intention, when this Committee reports, to treat it in the same way that they have already treated the Resolutions of the Committee of 1918. I hope that is not the case, and I can promise that although we are supporters of the Government we are determined to do all we possibly can to increase the Parliamentary control upon the financial matters which come before the House and, if necessary, we are prepared to vote against the Government if we think they have not got sufficient control of finance.

Lord H. CECIL: This Debate has been conducted under rather difficult, circumstances during the dinner hour, which, under the procedure of the House, is the least dignified and least efficient part of
the House's working day, since there is no interval allowed in which persons can get anything to eat. Accordingly, not all those interested in the subject can ever be present in the House together, and it necessarily happens that the Minister himself has to be absent for a considerable period. In spite of that, I am glad we have pressed the matter on the notice of the Government, not, of course, because it would be of any advantage to divide the House on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, but because the essence of the problem of economy is, after all, in control. You will not really effect any economy at all unless you can strengthen the economic forces either in the Treasury or in this House, or whatever it may be, so as to make them stronger than the forces which are always pressing for new expenditure. I was disappointed with my right hon. Friend's speech. I thought he at moments sank to the level of mere bureaucracy. All that part about the intolerable burden it was to officials to answer questions and all the rest of it is bureaucracy all over. I am not at all sorry that these Committees cause every Department a great deal of trouble. I hope they will go on causing them a great deal of trouble. I want to make expenditure as troublesome and vexatious for every official in the Government employ as it can be made, and if I were on such a Committee I would try to give officials who are responsible for the expenditure as disagreeable an experience as I could in order to make them dread coming before the Committee and having to justify the new expenditure. It is not by sparing them time or trouble that we shall effect any economy. It is by being hard upon them, by insisting that they really should be zealous for economy, and by making it very disagreeable for them if they are not.
Then I ask myself, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves, that we are spending more money on everything when we have much less to spend? We have been through a war involving enormous expenditure, and we have accumulated a vast debt, all of which has to be defrayed out of public funds. Yet in spite of that we are going on, apparently, enlarging our normal expenditure, not merely the expenditure necessary
for winding up the War or the expenditure arising directly out of the War, but expenditure which is of a normal character and which is to go on for ever. We are enlarging that at the very moment when we are reeling under the burden of debt. It is quite unsound to attempt to shelve the burden of responsibility from the Government to the House and back again from the House to the Government, Nothing is more true than that the House is on the whole an influence in favour of extravagance, and I am afraid that the public opinion which the House represents, which does not necessarily mean the public opinion of the electorate, but the active part of public opinion which puts pressure on Members, is on the whole on the side of expenditure. Though that is true, it does not mean that you are to do nothing; that we are to sit down as the Chancellor of the Exchequer almost seemed to do in a fatalist spirit and to say that nothing can be done; that Treasury control is a very good thing for saving waste, but that no effective economy can be made merely by saving waste; that you must deal with the question of policy, but on the question of policy there is really nothing to be done, because the Cabinet want to spend money, the House wants to spend money, and those who influence the House want to spend money. That is all true It is the diagnosis of the disease; but it is no use merely meditating serenely on an intolerable condition of affairs. We have to alter that, we have to get a Government that will not want to spend money. We must get a more enlightened House of Commons which will not want to go on spending money in this way. We want to instruct the electorate that high expenditure means high prices. It is a delusion to suppose that the poor people can escape suffering under high expenditure, because the expenditure in the first instance is defrayed by taxes on the rich, in Income Tax, Death Duties, and so on You cannot enable the great body of the working classes to escape the whole burden of national expenditure merely by putting taxation first of all upon the rich. In the end, that which is taken from one purse is taken out of the total wealth of the country, and sooner or later everybody suffers, because in the effort to adjust things the pressure is handed from one person to another until everybody feels a degree of the burden. Now, when
prices are high, and when we are suffering from inflation, nothing is more certainly true than that high expenditure means higher prices, and that that indirectly hits the great body of the working people. If that is so, we cannot sit down with the fatalist spirit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and merely complain of the extravagance of the Cabinet, the extravagance of the House of Commons, and the extravagance of the electorate. We must amend these things, and it was in order to get an interchange of view between the Government and the House as to the best machinery for improving it, to try to get the House to realise the dangers of extravagance, to try to strengthen the economical influence within the Government and to instruct the electorate outside that this Motion was put down.
Of course, one can always see difficulties in the way of any proposed reform. I am sure that Committee of Supply is no use at all for the purpose of economy. Committee of Supply is a quite good place for discussing grievances and points of administration and points of policy in the general interests of the country. It is a very useful and convenient means for that purpose, but it is no use for the purpose of economising public money. I think my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Government bench will agree with me in what I am about to say, that within my memory, during the time I have been a Member of this House and, I believe, within their memory, there has not been a single instance in which a discussion in Committee of Supply has brought about any economy in national finance. Therefore, Committee of Supply is no use for the purpose of economy. But are we to take it, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government fall back upon this position that the House of Commons has not any machinery for effecting economy, and that we are to do nothing on behalf of economy. That seems to me to be a most grotesque position. Committee of Supply and all the elaborate procedure which the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) referred to, and all the elaborate procedure laid down in the Standing Orders, was established in days when finance was very simple in order to enable the House of Commons to check expenditure and control finance. Now, matters are much more complicated, and you cannot
really discuss and effectively bring about economy in Committee of Supply. Therefore, you want something in its place. We have had this Committee on National Expenditure for the last few years, and it has made a number of recommendations, none of which I gather the Government has accepted. That is a deplorable thing. It is treating a Committee of this House with a good deal of want of respect, and it is also deplorable because it discourages those Members of Parliament who are trying to have the finances of the country more economically conducted. It is very hard that the Government should turn upon the House of Commons and tell us that we are extravagant, that we put pressure upon the Government on the side of extravagance, and at the same time entirely ignore suggestions in the interests of economy.
We are told, and I believe perfectly truly told, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and several of my hon. Friends, that though you may save a few pounds here and there by criticism of administrative extravagance, you cannot effect any thing like the economy which you desire unless you deal with the question of policy. Well, why should not a Committee of this House deal with the question of policy? There is nothing wrong in discussing policy. They might make a mistake, and their suggestion might be a bad one; but, at any rate, it is an advantage to the Government to have criticisms on questions of policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asks us "on what items would you make a reduction? Do you want to cut down pensions, national health insurance, or education?" That is the sort of question which contains a fallacy. Take education for example. Nobody wants to abolish expenditure upon education altogether. Nobody even wants to set back educational progress, but it does not follow that you must necessarily make, in these years when the finances of the country are so heavily burdened, immense expansion in educational expenditure. That is a matter for consideration and investigation. It is a case of weighing one advantage against another advantage, and until you look into the matter it is quite impossible to say whether all the money spent upon education is or is not wisely spent. I am not speaking of waste, but I am
speaking of the question of policy, whether it is really wise to carry forward educational expenditure as far as it is being carried until you look into it. A Committee of Supply is no use for that purpose. A large Committee of the whole House is no use. You want a small Committee that can go into the whole matter and that can say, "Excellent though this expenditure may be on secondary education, at the present time it is not appropriate, and the House would be wiser to wait for three or four years for a suitable opportunity for carrying out this policy." In that way you might effect economy. You need to see the economical side of things. The Chancellor of the Exchequer complained that we are extravagant. So we are. It is because we only see one side of the problem; because we do not know how to economise. We have no body which will inform us of all the detailed arguments in favour of economy. Nothing that will supply us with every side of the case for economy.
10.0 P.M.
That is why we want to have a number of small Committees, Committees of three or four or five—large Committees waste such a lot of time—each working on a small subject, one class of Estimates, and trying whether they can suggest some economy, and setting out with the view of cutting down something. I daresay that they would not be always right, and that they would be often wrong. But, at any rate, we should have the case for economy stated to us by a new authority. The members of the Government, according to tradition, are always supposed to stick to one another. Therefore, once an Estimate is passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who may have fought against it tooth and nail behind the scene, is expected to say that it must be supported.
A Committee of the House would be in a different position. They might reopen the whole controversy. They might have a Treasury official who would further present the case which had first been put unsuccessfully, perhaps with a better chance of success. This would strengthen the hands of the Treasury in controlling expenditure on another occasion. They would be able to say, "You will have your money, but it must be in a manner which can be defended. Can you justify it?" If that
be not a good proposal, put forward something else. Do not let us despair of economy. Do not let the House of Commons abandon one of its great functions, and say that nothing shall be done because people are extravagant. Then, in regard to these Votes, which the House does sometimes make unwisely in favour of increased expenditure, what I think unfair to the House is that they have no proper opportunity of arranging the financial side of the question or of having it put properly or permanently before them. It is quite easy to contrive machinery by which that could be done. For instance, it might be arranged that whenever the adoption of a Resolution would involve increased public expenditure, it should be moved in Committee of the whole House, Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair without Question put, on the Order being read. A Resolution in Committee does not become the Act of the House until reported to and agreed to by the House. Suppose an extravagant Resolution is passed in Committee of the House under that procedure, then it would be open to the Government to press the case for economy before the Resolution came up for Report. Under our procedure the Resolution could not come up on Report unless the Government find time. If they did find time, they would, no doubt, take up the case for economy, or you might have a Resolution automatically committed to a small Committee instructed to state the case from the point of view of economy.
It is very easy to contrive opportunities for the House to hear the case of economy stated. There is no difficulty in inventing machinery. You can invent machinery if you want it. What is really wrong with the Government, and I am afraid with a large part of the House, is that although we talk a great deal about economy, people do not really care. This discussion has lasted some time. If it had concerned something which really passionately interested the House and the country, we should have had a larger attendance on these benches to-night. The total apathy of feeling is a testimony to a real want of zeal in the cause of economy. I do not think that there is any cure for that except by information. Let the House have the best opportunity for knowing the facts, the facts about expenditure, the operation of taxation, how it presses upon the
life of the country and cases of hardship. A very remarkable case was mentioned by my hon. Friend who spoke from behind the Government benches. Cases of that kind show the real urgency of the need for economy. Let us face the fact that at this moment you cannot possibly do more good to poor people or to the community as a whale than by economising in national expenditure. What we want is something that will press towards economy with something of the force with which the War pressed towards expenditure. I can remember the time when taxation now imposed was regarded as quite out of the question. Even so small a tax as the 2d. on cheques was thought to be impossible. I remember Sir Michael Hicks-Beach suggesting a 1½d. stamp during the South African War, but it was regarded as quite out of the question on the ground that it was likely to cause too much inconvenience. Under pressure of the War, these inconveniences have been faced and endured. What we want is pressure towards economy imperative in the same way as the War exercised pressure towards expenditure.
How do we find ourselves placed? We can do no more than supplicate; we cannot divide and reject this Bill. We do not know the details, and we cannot know the details of national administration in such a way that we can really criticise the policy from point to point and show where it can be made more economical. We cannot oblige the Government to set up new Committees, we cannot oblige them to reform the procedure of this House. We can only supplicate. But I think the Government must realise that unless they achieve much greater economy than they have achieved so far, unless they cut down expenditure for more drastically than they have done hitherto, the country, who are their masters and ours, will blame them, will throw aside all such excuses and such language as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has used to-night about the difficulties of machinery, and will insist that by some way or another we must realise that rigid entrenchment is necessary in a scale of expenditure which is becoming dangerously grave.

Mr. FRANCE: I am sure the House will be grateful to the Noble Lord for his speech and for having put a little life
into the Debate. I wish to associate myself entirely with the view that economies can be effected, if everyone makes up his mind that they shall be effected, and also with the view that policy should be considered as well as expenditure; but I do not agree altogether with the statement that no very considerable savings could be effected. I was surprised at the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), who has just been appointed to this Select Committee, committing himself to that statement. I think he might have reserved his judgment until he had sat on the Committee and taken evidence. I hope to meet him on that Committee as a colleague, and I shall hope to share with him the task of investigating the matters put before us.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: What I said, if I remember correctly, was that if we did find any extravagance there, the amount we could really save or recommend to be saved would be so small in relation to the hugh sum of £557,000,000, that the total would not amount to much or be worth much in the interests of economy.

Mr. FRANCE: I accept that explanation. I am not attacking the hon. Member at all, but I wish to take a different view with regard to the probable result of our investigations in that Committee. I agree entirely with those who have spoken in the sense that if this Committee is to be effective and if Members are to devote themselves to the work, it is absolutely essential, if the House is to retain anything like its position in this matter, that the Government must pay some attention to the Report of such a Committee, which is set up by them for a special purpose. During the whole of the Debates on this question of economy I have been struck very much with the similarity of the speeches made from the Front Bench. In every one of them, in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as in the very brilliant speech of the President of the Board of Trade, they unite in impressing upon the House that there is really nothing wrong, and that there is really no extravagance, and that nobody had succeeded in pointing out where the extravagance was. I really think that is hardly fair. In the first place, they should not say that if they have neglected to take the advice
which the Select Committee on National Expenditure has given, and in the second place, they should not forget that only a week or two ago two Members of the Government had to adopt a very chastened attitude on a certain afternoon when the House, rising for a moment to its privileges, asserted itself and refused to allow what it regarded as very extravagant expenditure with regard to building. On that afternoon, although the Government are asking the House to help them to economise, the House was met by the Leader of the House with a challenge that if they persisted in that course it would be regarded as a vote of confidence, and that the question of spending something like £150,000 upon buildings for the Revenue Department and a larger sum upon Employment Exchange buildings, if refused, would bring this great Government down and that they would regard it as a vote of censure. I really think that is not treating the House of Commons fairly or encouraging the House of Commons to exercise the duty, which I hope it will always exercise, of carrying out and bringing to bear due criticism upon the Government with regard to the question of expenditure. It may be true that the amount of money which can be saved by these investigations will not be large, but I think the effect on the country and upon those who are of opinion that the Government is extravagant will be very much larger than the amount of money actually saved. Whether it is the employment of more clerks or any wasteful administration, matters of that kind have a bad effect and impression upon the general feeling of the country with regard to extravagance and expenditure. It has been said it is very difficult for the Government to exercise control, and that no instances have been pointed out where control could be used in order to produce effect. May I give two examples where expenditure could be controlled? The first is as to Government guardianship of certain stores. Those particular stores were sold to a private firm, which tried to obtain possession of them, but could not do so. They sent a competent man to find out what was happening. He found warehouses, which were formerly timber sheds, filled with the goods, and with locked doors, but instead of trusting to lock and key and a caretaker, with insurance, as
any business firm would do, there was something like a platoon of men with noncommissioned officers and officers in charge of the goods. What they were doing nobody could find out, except that they are responsible for the care of the goods. The same firm went to the North of England to take possession of a further parcel of goods, and found the military in possession there and a large number of officers and non-commissioned officers and men engaged in guarding those goods. I should like to ask where the control and where the investigation of expense of that sort comes in? There is another case. I heard the other day of a case which I know is authentic, under the Ministry of Shipping, of a steamer which was in the employment of the Admiralty being sent from one southern port to a northern port empty, sent back another 300 miles empty, and then was about to be sent from London to Newcastle again empty, but after two days' persuasion it was permitted for the owners of the steamer, who were being paid £800 a month for the use of it, to load her to take a cargo from London to Newcastle, as a great favour. When the steamer arrived in Newcastle she took on board one boiler weighing 35 tons—she was capable of carrying some 800 or 900 tons of cargo; she went to Middlesbrough and picked up another boiler weighing 35 tons; - and delivered them to a private purchaser in Hull, who paid £50 extra for having delivery made, and the cost of delivery from Newcastle to Hull was £400, by which means the Government lost £350 on the transaction. That is the kind of thing that people are hearing about every day and coming in contact with in business life, and it is idle for the Government to say there is nothing wrong and that we do not point out individual cases of extravagance and waste. I sometimes wonder whether the Prime Minister, like Abraham Lincoln, in the leisure moments of the Cabinet, reads them classical fiction, and whether, if so, he has ever read them a passage from a well-known book, which I went to borrow after hearing one or two of the speeches from the Front Bench. There is a passage which is very applicable to the present situation in an old book, in which a reference is made to a certain Government office:
Sometimes angry spirits attacked [that] Office. Sometimes Parliamentary questions were asked about it, and even Parliamentary,
Motions made or threatened about it, by demagogues so low and ignorant as to hold that the real recipe of government was 'How to do it.' Then would the Noble Lord, or right hon. Gentleman, in whose Department it was to defend [that] Office, put an orange in his pocket, and make a regular field-day of the occasion. Then would he come down to that House with a slap upon the Table and meet the right hon. Gentleman foot-to-foot. Then would he be there to tell that hon. Gentleman that [that] Office not only was blameless in this matter, but was commendable in this matter, was extollable to the skies in this matter. Then would he be there to tell that hon. Gentleman that, although [that] Office was invariably right, and wholly right, it was never so right as in this matter. Then would he be there to tell that hon. Gentleman that it would have been more to his honour, more to his credit, more to his good taste, more to his good sense, more to half the dictionary of commonplaces, if he had left [that] Office alone and never approached this matter.
We hear something very much like that nowadays continually with regard to the Treasury and other Government Departments, and we really cannot believe it, because when we go about the country and meet in business with the various transactions of life, we know that in Government Departments there is waste going on, and all is not well with the work of economy which might be carried out. I have the highest respect, if I may say so, for the many qualities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I always listen to his speeches with great delight, but I wish he were rather more ruthless and would change places with the Minister of War. We want a peaceable person at the War Office and a warlike person at the Treasury. We need a Chancellor of the Exchequer always wanting to fight somebody, and I think the Minister of War would fill that office very well. We want somebody with a robust vocabulary, and as we sometimes find the principal artistes changing rôles, at any rate for a short time, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would not consider going to the War Office for a short time and asking the Minister of War to occupy his position, and do a little rough work round his Department for a few months.
I would like to endorse what the Noble Lord has said. It is no use saying that these things cannot be done; they have to be done. Economy and retrenchment must take place, and I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that, on the lines of economy and retrenchment, we are likely far sooner to
arrive at a sound financial position than by any far-fetched, subtle means of reducing debt, which might have a very adverse effect upon the general financial condition of the country. While the Noble Lord was speaking I was reminded of a story which, perhaps, will serve to press the point home. An American traveller was once telling a friend of an experience he had in a desert, where he saw a goat hotly pursued by a lion. Coming to a palm tree the goat, looking at it in despair, ran up the palm tree and sat on the very top. The lion remained at the bottom in the sand and growled. The American's friend said, "But a goat cannot climb a tree." The American replied, "A goat cannot climb a tree? It simply had to." If we are really to recover our financial position and the strength which we hope to see again in the industrial, economic and financial world, the Government will have to economise, and we shall have to see that they do.

Amendment negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, for To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS TRADE (CREDITS AND INSURANCE).

Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 23rd March.]

[Lord E. TALBOT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise the granting of credits and the undertaking of insurances for the purpose of re-establishing overseas trade and the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any sums required for granting credits for such purpose up to an amount not exceeding at any one time £26,000,000 and of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in connection with the granting of such credits and the undertaking of insurances so far as those expenses are not defrayed out of sums received by the Board by way of commission in respect "of credits or by way of premiums in respect of insurances."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I am sorry I was not here last night when this question arose. I was not aware that it was going to be taken.
I understand that the Committee desire to have some short explanation of the object which the Resolution seeks to carry out. I think everybody was agreed last year that it was desirable that something should be done to re-establish our trade connections in the disorganised parts of Europe. It will be good for them if we find some means of exporting to them machinery; rolling stock for railways, and other goods, enabling them to start trade again, restart the employment of their people, and provide exports. It will be good for us if we are enabled to establish ourselves in markets which, perhaps, have not been used by us before, and to get there as soon as, if not before other countries. Therefore, this scheme was devised for lending money to sellers in these countries, to enable them to wait for three years before they got payment from the countries to which they were exporters. Arrangements were made to advance up to 80 per cent. of the value of the articles exported. Against that the purchasers in other countries deposited currency up to an amount agreed upon with an agent authorised by this country, the idea being that the exchanges might during the next two or three years improve and that the payment would become easier for the purchaser. It was in order to tide over that time that this proposal was set on foot. It came into operation on 8th September. It was applicable to various countries, including Poland, Finland, the Baltic Provinces, Czecho-Slovakia, Jugo-Slavia, Rumania and the South-eastern part of Russia, which was then in the occupation of General Denikin. The full application could be extended later to other countries if the Board of Trade thought fit. The total amount involved has been explained in the White Paper. It is £26,000,000. That is repayable to the Treasury, and every transaction which takes place has to be settled within six years, that is by September, 1925. It is thought that this will be a self-supporting scheme. The seller in this country has to pay us a commission, and he has to pay a certain percentage on the money lent to him. Those sums it is thought will be sufficient to pay for the initial expenses, and also form a reserve in case any bad debts are incurred. I ought to say the Resolution includes power to insure against abnormal risks.
The actual advances which have been made under this scheme up to the present are somewhat disappointing.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that money has actually been advanced under this scheme?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, and the amount was put in the Supplementary Estimate. The advances sanctioned up to now amount to £299,000. One reason why the scheme has not proceeded more rapidly is because the exchange has gone so very much worse since the time when the scheme was first introduced. This scheme is not in any way intended to interfere with the operations of banks. These transactions have to be done through the banks of the manufacturers ill this country, and it is quite possible that the very fact of starting this scheme has caused a certain number of manufacturers to embark in enterprises of this kind on their own. I hope this resolution will be given us to-night, so that we may proceed with the Bill which is to be founded on it. It is a measure which has been foreshadowed for a long time, and was in all its essential points contained in a larger Bill previously introduced, when no opposition was advanced against this particular part of the measure.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I hope the House will stop to consider what they are doing before they agree to give the Government this Financial Resolution tonight. We have been discussing all day how we are to point out a way to the Government to save even a few million pounds, and here is an opportunity to prevent the expenditure of £26,000,000 which is proposed to be invested by the Government in a sort of commercial undertaking that no commercial men in the City of London would look at for one moment. I think the scheme stands condemned by the statement of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, when he says that it enables the Government to lend money on goods to be shipped to these foreign countries, payment for which cannot be collected for two or three years.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not say that. They may be collected at any moment.

Colonel WILLIAMS: I took down the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, and I think he said that the credits might run for two or three years. That is a
proposition which no business man would look at; and, if it be not good enough for an ordinary commercial man, surely it is not a transaction that the Government ought to enter into with the money of the public. They are the custodians of the money of the public exactly in the same way that the banks are the custodians of, the money of their shareholders, and, if the business be not good enough for ordinary commercial men, it is really not one that should be entered into by the Government without any consideration at all. If the Government want to encourage exports they might encourage them to countries that can afford to pay for them, and pay for them properly. In making shipments to America, there is no difficulty whatever in opening a credit on the other side. The exporter produces his bill of lading and his policy of insurance, he passes them through the bank, and the money is advanced to him at once and is collected at the other end on delivery of the goods. There is no question of waiting two or three years, and I cannot see the advantage likely to accrue to the Government from encouraging trade in quarters where it is doubtful whether people can afford to pay for the goods. That is not the sort of speculation to be undertaken by the Government.
There is another point in this White Paper on which we ought to have some explanation. The Government seem to have opened an insurance office against abnormal risks. I do not quite understand what is the meaning of "abnormal risks." Is it a risk from mines or from capture at sea by the enemy, or what is the nature of the risk? I notice that the Government, having opened this office, with, I presume, a large staff to conduct the business, find that the only function left to them is to point the way to private enterprise, and that they have done no business whatever. It seems to me, if that be so, that they might as well wash out altogether this insurance business. How are the exporters to be selected? Is any man who wishes to export goods to South-East Russia, and thinks that he can do so at a profit, entitled to come and claim that the Government should take over up to 80 per cent. of the manufacturing cost of the shipment that he is making, or is it left to some Committee of the Board of Trade to select who are entitled to receive this subsidy and who
are not? I should like an answer to that question before this Resolution is allowed to go through. I do appeal to the Government to drop this matter altogether. This is not a time when they can afford to risk £26,000,000 of the taxpayers' money on a wild-cat adventure. They have to be careful, and we have had before the Select Committee which is now sitting upstairs, evidence, which is open to anyone to read, that the financial position is getting into a very serious state. The banks have been compelled to ration capital to their customers, and the position is one which is likely to create considerable trouble in the financial world. The Leader of the House the other day said the Government had stopped borrowing. I have known a good many people do that, and the reason I fancy is about the same, they either have to pay an exorbitant rate of interest or they cannot find people willing to lend the money they require. If the House passes this Resolution to-night it will be doing disservice to the country. It should put a brake on the extravagance of the country. I do not care whether the expenditure is likely to be recouped in two, three or four years or not I say it is expenditure which ought not to be undertaken, and therefore I trust the House will refuse to allow it.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I hope hon. Members will press for further details of this Vote I join with the last speaker in asking how this sum is to be given out to merchants in the City of London or elsewhere, and where the particulars of the conditions are to be obtained. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the disadvantages of this scheme. We are approaching the question of trading with these countries on an unsound basis entirely. It is not in the interest of this country to advance large sums of money without recognising these new States. The hon. Gentleman in introducing the resolution said it was proposed to operate in Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, Czecho-Slovakia, Jugo-slavia, Rumania and South-East Russia. Some of these States have been recognised, including Finland, Czecho-Slovakia and Jugo-Slavia, but as regards the remainder—the Baltic Provinces, Poland, the States in South-East Russia, the Ukraine, the Georgia, the Caucasus and
others—we have not yet recognised them. We have recognised Esthonia de facto, and also Poland in an ambiguous manner, but before we commence trading with these countries we should take official steps to recognise that they exist. It is unbusinesslike to lend money to a country which we have not yet decided is a definite or specific State. It would be far better if, instead of wasting this money on these wild adventures, we were to give complete recognition to the small countries which have been formed out of the late Russian Empire. May I remind the House that we are not following the example of one of our Allies. Italy has already recognised Esthonia, not only de facto, but also de jure, and has sent a representative there. If we are going to approach this matter seriously, and are really in earnest in desiring to resume trading with these countries—and there is not an hon. Member who does not realise the need for opening up trade and commerce with Eastern Europe as soon as possible—let us approach the matter with greater earnestness, and let us decide once and for all to recognise these States, not only de facto, but de jure. Having done that, we may consider what financial assistance may be given to them. My right hon. Friend informed us that up to the present £299,000 has been actually sanctioned in connection with commerce in those countries, but that up to the present advances have only been taken for £13,334. The smallness of those figures shows the opinion of financial and commercial people towards this undertaking. Those countries, and especially the countries in South Russia—Georgia and Azerbaijan—are teeming with undeveloped resources, and those small countries are in anxious need of financial assistance. It would be better, if the Government decide to spend money at all in assisting their commercial development, they were to supply that money for Government loans, or perhaps currency loans, to the de facto Governments of those countries. In my opinion, that would lead to a much speedier development of commerce and industry in those countries. I do not believe in proposing a loan of this sort simply to support private interests, without dealing with the fundamentals at stake, and I shall certainly vote against the Motion before the House.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: This proposed loan undoubtedly will affect the industries of the country in one way or another. I come from a part of the country which depends to a large extent upon the export of its manufactures, but I have yet to learn that the cotton manufacurers of Lancashire are in any way asking for assistance in their export trade. If I read the newspapers aright, the reports in connection with that industry are to the effect that orders are booked up which will keep the industry going for some five years. I take it that they have booked those orders without any knowledge that the Government were taking steps to assist them in the export of their manufactures. They are satisfied themselves to take the risk of getting payment for the manufactures they export. In Lancashire, also, coal is got, and I have yet to learn that the colliery proprietors have any difficulty in securing orders, or payment for those orders. What other exports have the Government in mind in proposing to lend £26,000,000? I know there is textile machinery, and there are very large textile machinery manufacturers in Lancashire, but I have yet to learn that they have any doubts as to being able to get payment for the machinery they have tendered for, or for the orders they have accepted. I think the Government ought to make much more clear the reason why they propose to advance £26,000,000 to aid the export of various manufactures of this country. But there is something more. This House granted a charter to a company whose main object was to develop trade with foreign countries. What is that company doing which has the backing of the Government and the country behind it? The House is entitled to a fuller explanation of what is at the back of the minds of the Government in proposing this expenditure. If it can be shown that it is going to be spent with the object of further developing the industries of the country it becomes not only a manufacturers' but also an industrial question, affecting the working people of the country. But if manufacturers are so full of orders and are prepared to take the risk of securing payment for these orders, I fail to see why the Government should have £26,000,000 of national money to insure against risk and also to finance exporters. If the hon. Gentleman will explain more fully
what manufacturers it is proposed to finance and show what industries are going to benefit by it, I should be probably inclined to vote with the Government, but last night and to-night we have had no full explanation of the real objects of the Government, and I certainly think they will be well advised to postpone further consideration of the Resolution—there is no great hurry for it—until not only the Government is prepared to state more fully what is the object in asking the House to grant £26,000,000, but also give us a further opportunity of considering and digesting what this really means.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I endeavoured to explain what the intentions were with regard to the kind of goods which were to be exported. They were to be especially manufactured goods, and the manufacture of them would give employment to the workpeople of the country. I stated, as an example, locomotives and rolling-stock for railways and agricultural machinery, and, as a matter of fact, there have been applications from cotton and textile manufacturers to the Board of Trade to make use of this scheme. The only real condition is that the goods to be exported should not be raw materials, but manufactured articles giving employment in this country Applications are to be made to a special Department of the Board of Trade through the bankers of the manufacturers who want to do this trade. Of course, if the manufacturers are quite able to get all the trade they want without this scheme they will not have recourse to it, but the object is to enable them to start in countries where the state of disturbance has been so great that they cannot be expected, owing to the state of the exchange, to get immediate payment. We think that is good for us and for those countries, because it will start a trade which we may not have had before, and it will revive those countries, not only with regard to the particular article that we export to them, but through that will enable them to expand and develop in many other directions.

Colonel WILLIAMS: Is there any power to give assistance to the trader.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Board of Trade have to go into the cases and to decide according to the merits of each case. The hon. and gallant Member
(Lieut.-Colonel Malone) rather Messed the scheme then found fault with it. Although it did not seem to him to be wide enough in its application, yet so far as the hon. and gallant Member went, he gave it his approval when he said that he thought that it was most desirable to enable these countries to recover their trade at the earliest possible moment. In regard to the question of insurance against abnormal risks, it is in order to give a safeguard against ordinary insurance people asking too high premiums, and therefore preventing business. It is a safeguard against risks. It is thought advisable we should continue the power to make this insurance in order to prevent exorbitant charges being made, as might happen if we left it entirely open.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Whatever may be said for a scheme of this sort under some conditions, at the present time there is absolutely no need for anything of the sort. Anyone connected with the industrial and manufacturing trades of the country knows that manufacturers have not to seek orders for export; they are simply thrown at them to a greater extent than they can execute them. The difficulty is not to get orders, but to execute them and to take advantage of the orders now being offered. The hon. Member (Mr. Bridgeman) was not particularly fortunate in the illustration he gave to the House, especially following the Debate which took place earlier. He suggested that manufacturers of locomotives and rolling stock might be assisted by this scheme in regard to exports and thought the great difficulty we were working under at the present time was the shortage of rolling stock and locomotives for our own industries in order to keep our own works going. It is highly undesirable that, having regard to the present state of affairs, any scheme should be brought forward for helping locomotives and rolling stock to be sent out of the country. At a time like the present, when economy is so absolutely necessary, the Government should hesitate before they make a departure from sound financial precedents by attempting adventures of this sort. The English manufacturer as a whole is able to look after himself and he knows his own business better than any State
or Government Department can know it. If the risk is not one that any manufacturer or trader or his agent will undertake it is surely not one that the Government at this juncture ought to step in to assist. We need to conserve our resources as far as possible and not to further them away in any possible hare brained experiments where considerable risk is involved and considerable finance is at stake. I appeal to the Government not to press this matter. It is an undoubted risk and one involving millions of money at a time when they are enjoining economy not only on the country as a whole but on their own Departments. It is hardly carrying out the spirit of the famous letter which the Prime Minister addressed to the various Government Departments, asking them ruthlessly to keep down all their expenditure and to economise wherever possible. The best application of that advice would be to follow it in this particular Department, and to withdraw the Vote that is the subject of discussion to-night. It is necessary to increase the balance of our exports over our imports in order to stabilise our trade and to re-establish the exchange, but at this particular time, when export orders are available for all manufacturers to a much greater extent than they can possibly execute them, there is no need whatever for the Government to go forward with this scheme.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (EXPENSES).

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Acts relating to National Health Insurance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of the additional expenses incurred by any Government department:—

(a) in making grants equal to two-ninths of the funds required for providing benefits and for defraying expenses of administration, so however that the rate of sickness benefit shall not exceed fifteen shillings a week for men or twelve shillings a week for women, the rate of disablement
569
benefit shall not exceed seven shillings and six pence a week, and maternity benefit shall not exceed forty shillings;
(b) in increasing from eight shillings to ten shillings the rate on which is calculated the maximum amount which may be charged on the Women's Equalisation Fund;
(c) in increasing the weekly sums to be paid to insurance funds in respect of members of the Navy, Army, and Air Force."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. THOMSON: On the Second Reading the Minister of Health assured the House that the Committee would have an opportunity of discussing the variation of grants as between men and women. This Resolution fixes the differentiation. On the Insurance Unemployment Bill we were told that the House, having passed a financial Resolution, which fixed the way in which these grants could be made—

Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): The Minister in charge, I am sorry to say, cannot be here, and if the hon. Member wishes to discuss the matter we should be ready to adjourn the Debate.

Mr. THOMSON: I was going to ask if the Government would agree to leave out the words "for men and the twelve shillings a week for women," as that would leave the question open.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would be increasing the charge, which is not permissible.

Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir R. Sanders.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eleven of the Clock.